See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278008005

The Office - An Explorative Study : Architectural Design's Impact on

Health, Job Satisfaction & Well-being

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

41 1,577

1 author:

Christina Bodin Danielsson

School of Architecture, KTH Royal Institute of Technology
34 PUBLICATIONS 1,051 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aktikon View project

Psychosocial factors relation to office design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christina Bodin Danielsson on 23 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 the office
AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY

Architectural Design’s Impact on Health, Job Satisfaction & Well-being

CHRISTINA BODIN DANIELSSON

iV

FRONT COVER
Skattehuset (the Tax Authority Building) in Stockholm by architect Paul Hedqvist, 1959
PHOTOGRAPH AND COVER DESIGN BY: Christina Bodin Danielsson
Photographs, on which no photographer is refered to, are unknown

© COPYRIGHT Christina Bodin Danielsson

PhD Dissertation, 2010

THE OFFICE—An Explorative Study
Architectural Design’s Impact on Health, Job Satisfaction and Well-being
Svensk titel: KONTORSARBETE—en explorativ studie om sambandet mellan
det arkitektoniska rummet och arbetstillfredsställelse, hälsa och välbefinnande.
TRITA - ARK Akademisk avhandling 2010: 2
ISSN 1402-7461
ISRN KTH/ARK AA-10:02-SE
ISBN 978-91-7415-700-0

KTH School of Architecture and Built Environment

School of Architecture
Royal Institute of Technology
SE- 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Christina Bodin Danielsson
[email protected], [email protected]

iv
 V

Tillägnad
mamma & pappa—tack för ALLT

Dedicated to
mum & dad—thanks for EVERYTHING

v
VI
SUMMARY
This doctoral thesis examines the office environment’s influence on employees’ perception of
their workplaces, their organizations and their job satisfaction, as well as their health and well-
being. It is based on an empirical study of 491 office employees from twenty-six companies and
divisions in large companies. Seven office types, defined by their architectural and functional
features, are represented in the study group: cell-office, shared-room office, small open plan
office, medium-sized open plan office, large open plan office, flex-office and combi-office. The
research has its basis in architecture, although an interdisciplinary approach using organizational
and management theory, environmental psychology, and social and stress medicine has been
employed. Qualitative (Articles I & V) and quantitative met­­hods (Articles II & IV) were used.
The thesis also contains an explorative, review article. Thus it comprises all in all five articles.
Article I is an analysis of the importance of architectural quality for employees´ perception
and experience of the office using Lynch’s method (1960) developed to measure inhabitants’
perception of architectural quality in cities. The study shows that in the office the experience
to a high degree is independent of both the scale of the office and office type; instead it is
determined by the quality of the plan layout combined with the quality of other design features.
It also shows Lynch’s method to be useful in foreseeing where the elements that reinforce
‘imageability’ will most likely appear in an office environment.
Article II investigates employees’ environmental satisfaction focusing on:
1) ambient factors; 2) noise and privacy; and 3) design-related factors. The results, based on
regression models with age, gender, job rank and line of business as additional covariates,
show office type as a factor with a statistically significant impact on satisfaction with the office
environment. Employees in cell-offices are prominently most satisfied, followed by those in
flex-offices, cell-offices rate low only on social aspects of design-related factors. A major finding
is the internal differences between office types where employees share workspace and facilities
with lowest satisfaction in medium-sized and large open plan offices.
Article III is a review article that analyzes the employees’ office experiences in two ways:
1) by framing the physical work environment’s influence on employees into the model of
organizational theorist Davis (1994); and 2) by categorizing the office experience into two
groups based on the nature of the experience and problems related to them. The results of the
emperical study presented in Article II are the basis for the discussion in this article.
Article IV examines employees’ health, well-being and job satisfaction. A multivariate
analysis applied to the study sample and equivalent to that of Article II shows significantly higher
risks for ill health and poor well-being in medium-sized and small open plan offices, compared
especially with cell-office. In medium-sized open plan and combi-offices the employees evince
the lowest job satisfaction. The best chance for good health status and job satisfaction is in cell-
offices and flex-offices.
Article V examines the office architecture´s importance for employees’ perception of their
own workplaces and organizations based on the two key components of architecture—the
aesthetical and functional dimensions. The results show that overall the employees had positive
experiences of their office environments. These mainly concerned the aesthetical dimension,
whereas the negative comments dealt with the functional dimension. The aesthetical dimension
appears not only to set the agenda for employees’ perception of the workplace and organization
as a whole, but also for the perception of the functional dimensions. The functional dimensions
were only in focus when the workstation and its proximate area were discussed.
Keywords: employees, office environment, office type, architectural features, functional features, architecture,
experience, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, health, job satisfaction, perception

vi
 VIi
SAMMANFATTNING
Det övergripande syftet med doktorsavhandling en är att studera kontorsmiljöns påverkan på
anställda, på deras: 1) uppfattning av den egna arbetsplatsen och organisationen, 2) trivsel med
kontorsmiljön, inklusive 3) hälsa, välbefinnande och arbetstillfredsställelse. Studien bygger på en
empirisk studie med 491 kontorsanställda från tjugosex företag/avdelningar i större företag. Sju
kontorstyper har identifierats, definierade av sina arkitektoniska och funktionella karaktärsdrag.
Kontorstyperna är: cellkontor, delat rum, litet-, mellanstort- och stort kontorslandskap samt
flexkontor och kombikontor.
Arbetet har sin utgångspunkt i arkitektur, men ett tvärvetenskapligt angreppssätt tillämpas på
kontorsmiljö som inbegriper organisationsteori, miljöpsykologi samt stress- och socialmedicin.
Både kvalitativ (artikel I & V) och kvantitativ metod (artikel II & IV) används. Avhandlingen
inbegriper dessa artiklar samt en översiktsartikel (artikel III) och omfattar därmed fem artiklar:
Artikel I studerar vikten av arkitektonisk kvalité för kontorsanställdas upplevelse av den egna
arbetsplatsen och organisationen. I artikeln undersöks även möjligheten att använda den metod
Lynch (1960) utvecklade för att undersöka stadsmiljö utifrån ett användarperspektiv i en interiör
miljö. Resultatet visar att upplevelsen av arkitektonisk kvalité vare sig bestäms av kontorets
storlek eller kontorstyp utan av kvalitén på planlösning och detaljutformning. Metoden framstår
även som ett användbart verktyg i designprocessen för att förutse var de element som Lynch
anser stärker arkitektonisk kvalité kommer att uppstå i en miljö.
Artikel II undersöker trivseln med arbetsmiljön bland kontorsanställdas i olika kontorstyper.
Fokus är på: 1) miljöfaktorer (ljus, ventilation, temperatur), 2) buller och avskildhet (privacy),
samt 3) designrelaterade faktorer (arbetsstation, kontorslokal och kontorsbyggnad). Den
multivariata regressionsanalysen visar att signifikanta skillnader i trivsel med kontorsmiljön
mellan olika kontorstyper kvarstår när hänsyn tagits till ålder, kön, befattning och bransch. Mest
nöjda är de som arbetar i cellkontor, därefter de i flexkontor. I cellkontor är man dock missnöjd
med kontorsgestaltningens stöd för social verksamhet. Störst missnöje återfinns i mellanstort
och stort kontorslandskap. Studien pekar även ut intressanta skillnader i trivsel med arbetsmiljön
mellan anställda i olika typer av öppna kontorsmiljöer.
Artikel III presenterar en forskningsöversikt om kontorsmiljöns påverkan på anställdas
kontorsupplevelser. Två olika analysmetoder för kontorsupplevelser redovisas: 1) en modell
för kontorsmiljöns påverkan utvecklad av organisationsteoretikern Davis (1994), och 2) en
kategorisering av kontorsupplevelsen i två olika grupper baserat på dess karaktär och problem
relaterad till den. Diskussionen i artikeln exemplifieras med resultaten från artikel II.
Artikel IV behandlar kontorsanställdas hälsa, välbefinnande och arbetstillfredsställelse i
olika kontorstyper. Samma multivariata regressionsanalys som i artikel II tillämpas. Resultatet
visar att störst sannolikhet för god hälsa finns i cell- och flexkontor, medan risken för ohälsa
är signifikant högre bland personal i mellanstort kontorslandskap. Högst arbetstillfredsställelse
rapporterar de som arbetar i flexkontor och delat rum tillsammans med de i cellkontor. Lägst
arbetstillfredsställelse återfinns i ­­­­­­­­mellanstort kontorslandskap och kombikontor.
Artikel V granskar arkitekturens och dess två huvudkomponenter, de estetiska och funktionella
dimensionerna, betydelse för de kontorsanställdas uppfattning om den egna arbetsplatsen och
organisationen. Av studien framgår att man överlag är positiv till det egna kontoret. De positiva
upplevelserna är främst kopplade till arkitekturens estetiska dimension, medan de negativa
upplevelserna är kopplad till dess funktionalitet. Den estetiska dimensionen tenderar även att
dominera upplevelsen av arbetsplatsen och organisationen som helhet, funktionaliten är dock i
fokus när den egna arbetsplatsen och dess närområde diskuterades.
Nyckelord: kontorsanställd, kontorsmiljö, arkitektoniska karaktärsdrag, funktionella karaktärsdrag,
kontorstyp, arkitektur, upplevelse, trivsel, hälsa, välbefinnande
vii
vIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This doctoral thesis has for many years played a major part in my life; as much as it has been
a scientific process of development for me, it has also been a personal one. And although
a doctoral dissertation is defined by many as ‘one man’s work’, this work could never have
been done without the help and contribution of many others, i.e. this dissertation would not
have been possible if not for all the participants at the twenty-six offices that took part in the
study, as well as their managers who supported this project. All the participants are greatly
acknowledged for their contribution to this research project and for their patience in filling out
the long questionnaire. A special thanks to those employees who also participated in the in-
depth interviews, despite their often tight schedules.
Exploring the interdisciplinary field of the architectural design’s impact on employees and
organizations leads inevitably into a multi-disciplinary field of science. Hence the work requires
inputs and insights from several scientific disciplines of research. I consider myself privileged
to have had several supervisors—formal and informal.
The doctoral work is a collaboration between the School of Architecture and Built
Environment, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, and Örebro University. I
sincerely thank my two principal supervisors: Magnus Rönn, Associate Professor at the School of
Architecture and Built Environment, KTH; and Lennart Bodin, Professor of Statistics at Örebro
University and senior researcher at Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden.
Magnus Rönn’s support and enthusiasm throughout the work—even before he stepped
in as my main supervisor—has been excellent. By offering me a position at the School of
Architecture and Built Environment and in the research group ‘arc•plan’ at a crucial phase of
the research project, I found the essential, scientific environment I so needed to complete the
first step of a doctoral thesis, the licentiate thesis. Magnus Rönn´s assistance in the analysis
and structuring of the qualitative data was indispensable for the project, as was his feedback
and support. I am also thankful for the opportunity he has given me to teach at the school and
develop my educational experience.
I am equally grateful to my co-supervisor Lennart Bodin who had the courage to step in and
help me in the statistical analysis of the immense amount of quantitative data, before he had
any formal role in the project. His genuine interest in my work and his analytic mind has played
a decisive role in the formulation of the thesis, and his part cannot be overestimated. Even in
the non-statistical sections of this work his contributions were most valuable. Without his help
the work would not have been possible, since I as an architect have no training in statistical
methodology. Lennart Bodin is also co-author of two of the articles in this doctoral thesis.
My thanks go also to Töres Theorell, Professor Emeritus in Psychosocial Medicine at
Karolinska Institutet and senior researcher at the Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University,
for opening my eyes to stress medicine through the course ‘Stress Research from Biology to
Society,’ offered at the National Institute for Psychosocial Medicine (IPM), Karolinska Institutet.
Despite a tight schedule and no formal role in the thesis, he always found time and interest for
my work. His open mind and curiosity for subjects outside his immediate field, combined with
a genuine interest in the physical environment’s influence on people, has meant a lot to me. In
my opinion, Töres Theorell is a role model for a researcher. My appreciation goes also to Reza
Emdad, Associate Professor, who while in charge of the course Stress Prevention in the Master
of Science program at IPM, invited me to present seminars and lectures at that course. For me
as a young scholar at an early phase of my doctoral work this opportunity was important, as
it increased the confidence in my own research. For the same reason I want to thank interior
architect Janetta Mitchell McCoy, Associate Professor at Washington State University, U.S.A., who

Viii
 ix
while at the College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University,
invited me to lecture to the students in its PhD program.This led later to an inspiring two-
month research visit at the school. On my ‘PhD journey’ I have greatly appreciated visits to
different international research environments—they were inspiring and helped me to focus on
my project. So I am most grateful to my friends and architectural colleagues at Cape Peninsula
University of Technology (CPUT) in Cape Town, South Africa, who so willingly incorporated
me in their work. They did not only offer me a haven for exerting my full concentration at
the final, critical phase of my PhD process, but also gave me the opportunity to lecture on
my research and participate in the evaluation of the final exam work of the students there.
Extra thanks go to Jake de Villiers, Head of the Architectural Technology Department, who
so generously welcomed me; Andre van Graan, who was in charge of the research; and Hermie
Voulgarelis, my dear roommate who played a great part in making me feel at home, and helped
me no end to enjoy my three-month stay so much
The following people deserve a special mention: Peter Hecht PhD, an environmental
psychologist with his own business and lecturer at Temple University, Philadelphia, U.S.A., who
benevolently invited me into the world of EDRA and made the EDRA conferences something
special. He contributed valuable comments on my work and along the way become a dear
friend of mine; Professor Terry Hartig of the Institute for Housing and Urban Research and
Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, for valuable comments as opponent on my
licentiate thesis, but also for inviting me into his network of environmental psychologists;
Professor Björn Hårsman of the Division of Economics, School of Architecture and Built
Environment, KTH—my mentor, whose support, wisdom and honesty gave me a boost on my
journey; Cornelia Wolff, PhD candidate at the Department of Psychology, Stockholm University,
and a friend with whom I share both a passion for stress research and a delight in hanging
out at the National Library in Humlegården. She has been a great guide to me with the rules
of the American Psychology Association’s Manual (APA), a jungle for the non-initiated; Jonas
E. Andersson, my dear friend and roommate, with whom I have shared my PhD journey from
the very start, with its ups and downs. His insightful comments and help in various ways have
contributed to the work; and Charlotte Svensson, for being a very dear colleague and positive
force, who assisted me in the graphical design work of the doctoral thesis. She even offered me
a template for the final layout work of the thesis. This PhD journey would not have been the
positive experience it has been if not for the various colleagues at the School of Architecture
and Built Environment I have had through the years. A simultaneous ‘thank you’ goes therefore
to: Andreas Falk, Patrick Bjurström, Johan Kihlberg, Maud Hårleman, Monica Sand, Elisabeth Thornberg,
Katarina Bonnevier, Hanna Erixon, Jenny Wiklund, Katrin Fagerström, Daniel Koch, Mari Ferring and
Ann Legeby among others. I would also like to thank my former PhD colleagues at the School of
Technology of Health for sharing their first PhD experiences with me: Anna Rylander and Erland
Flygt. And acknowledgement goes to the influential librarians: Johanna Andersson, at the School
of Technology and Health, for helping me find articles within my field of research; and Anne
Laaangard, Margitta Kylberg and Sofie Andén of the Architecture School Library who provided
additional literature. And I am grateful to my friends Peggy Parker-Anderies, Peter Hecht and Tina
Honthy, who, free of charge, were kind enough to revise the English in sections of the thesis.
I appreciate Brunnberg & Forshed Architects Ltd and Hans Bergström especially, for the courage
and insight they showed when after my licentiate degree they hired me as office specialist, an
architect with a somewhat different view on architectural design. Since then I have divided
my time between research and practice, in my opinion “two sides of the same coin”.This has
enabled me to procure more “fertile” research questions, and also to apply more adequate

iX
x
designs. My gratitude also goes to the various clients I have worked with through the years: for
their insight and courage in hiring me, as my distinct views of office design inevitably lead to
both different design processes and an unusual office structure. This research project was in its
final phase of the doctoral thesis, sponsored by the Swedish Research Council Formas and the L E
Lundberg Foundation. The first phase, the licentiate thesis, was supported by AP Fastigheter (today
Vasakronan), with further backing from Offecct AB and the Helgo Zetterwall Foundation. Participation
at international conferences and seminars has been made possible through financial support
from Formas, the Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Swedish for Council Social Science &
Working Life Research (FAS). The research visit to the Department of Architectural Technology,
CPUT, in Cape Town, was made possible by a grant from the Lars Hierta Foundation.
Finally, I thank my friends (you know who you are) and family (mum and dad, my sister Elisabeth
and her family, and Maj and Lennart) for your support and reminding me of the fact that there is
a world outside the research project. You all have a special place in my heart.
Mum and dad, this doctoral thesis is dedicated to you—for ALWAYS supporting me and
being there for me. Words are not enough to express the gratitude I feel; all I know is that I
could never have asked for a better mother and father. Örjan, my beloved husband, thanks for
being who you are and for sharing my life together with little Ingrid. Thanks for your courageous
mind and willingness to take off for new adventures anytime and, almost, anywhere in the world
(except for places with a high risk of stomach disease). I am forever thankful for the fact that I
attended that seminar in organizational theory in the early spring of 2003.

TACK - THANKS

Christina Bodin Danielsson

Melängen outside of Söderköping,
the summer of 2010

X
 xI
LIST OF ARTICLES
The doctoral thesis based on two empirical studies comprises of
following five articles:

1. Danielsson, C. (2005). Applying Lynch’s Theory on Office Environments.

Nordic Journal of Architectural Research (Swedish: Nordisk Arkitekturforskning),
Nr 4:69-79

2.
Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2009). Differences in Satisfaction with
Office Environment Among Employees in Different Office-types.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), p. 241-257

3.
Bodin Danielsson, C. (2007). Office Experiences. In H. Schifferstein & P.
Hekkert (Eds.), Product Experience.
San Diego, CA: Elsevier Scientific Publications, Netherlands

4.
Bodin Danielsson, C., & Bodin, L. (2008). Office Type in Relation to
Health, Well-being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees.
Environment & Behavior, 40(5), 2008.

5.
Bodin Danielsson, C., Aesthetics versus Function: What matters to Office
Employees?
Article submitted for publication

The published articles are reprinted with the permission of the publishers.

XI
xII
CONTENTS

PRELUDE
SUMMARY VI
SAMMANFATTNING VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT VIII
LIST OF ARTICLES XI
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OVERVIEW OF DISSERTATION 3
2. A MULTI-DISCIPLARY FIELD OF RESEARCH, 5
THE OFFICE ENVIRONMENT’S INFLUENCE
2.1 AN ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH 6
2.2 AN ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY APPROACH 7
2.3 AN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH APPROACH 8
2.4 AN ARCHITECTURAL APPROACH 10
2.5 A CHANGEABLE WORLD WITH NEW CONDITIONS 20
Different Times - Different Theories 22
2.6 A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO OFFICE DESIGN 28
Environmental Influences in Offices 29
The Perception of Environmental Factors 32
Environmental Stress 34
Environmental Factors in the Office 37
Concepts that Operate at a Group Level 42
2.7 SUMMARY 46

XII
 xIII

3. RESEARCH PROJECT 49
3.1 BASIS AND APPROACHES APPLIED 49
3.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 53
3.3 METHODS AND MATERIAL 55
Study Design and Analytic Models 55
Procedure 56
Study Group 57
Sociodemographics 59
Office Definitions 59
Measurements 62
3.4 OVERVIEW OF ARTICLES 65
ARTICLE 1: 66
Office Design: Applying Lynch’s Theory on Office Environments
ARTICLE 2: 67
Differences in Satisfaction with Office
Environments Among Employees in Different Office Types
ARTICLE 3: 69
Office Experiences
ARTICLE 4: 71
Office Type in Relation To
Health, Well-being and Job Satisfaction
ARTICLE 5: 73
Aesthetics versus Function: What Matters to Office Employees?
3.5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 75
Major Findings and Contributions 75
Health, Well-being and Job Satisfaction 76
Environmental Satisfaction with the Office 78
Office Employees’ Perception of Architecture 79
Concluding Remarks 82
4. REFERENCES 85
5. APPENDICES 94
5.1 APPENDICES 1 95
5.2 APPENDICES 2 99
5.3 APPENDICES 3 104

INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES 123

XIII
1
Introduction

The modern office building manifests economic strength and a belief in

the future, and it has been given a dominant role in the urban landscape
among larger cities of the Western world. The office is also the daily work
environment for a majority of the employed population in these societies,
where employees often spend more than 40 hours per week. Thus it exerts
a significant impact upon the lives of a great number of people. The
purpose of this doctoral thesis is to investigate the office environment´s
influence on employees´ environmental satisfaction, as well as on their
health and well-being. Poor working environments cause considerable
suffering and illness as well as costs for society (European Commission,
2002b; Milczarek, Schneider, & Rial González, 2009). There are high
rates of sick-leaves among the Swedish working population; and mental
ill-health is attributed as the single most common reason for sick-leave
among the white collar workers (Åsberg, Nygren, Rylander, & Rydmark,
2002). In addition to the need for people who work longer hours for
financial reasons, as well as an increased aging population in the Western
world, the subject of maintaining a sustainable work environment is
a pressing concern (Westerlund et al., 2009). These factors combined
make it appropriate to look at the possible relation between health and
well-being among office employees in relation to office environments.
Through research we know also that the psychosocial work environment
does have an impact on the health and well-being among employees (e.g.,
R. Karasek & T. Theorell, 1990; Siegrist, 1996; Toomingas, 1997).
The connection between job satisfaction and perception of the
psychosocial work environment is also well established. The question at
hand, however, is if there is any connection between the physical office
environment and the health and well-being among employees. When
studying the possible influence of the physical environment on health
and well-being, job satisfaction should thereby be considered. There is
research suggesting a relation between job satisfaction and health and
well-being (e.g., Beehr, 1995; Lu, 1999). This is important since job

1
 2
satisfaction is important at both an individual, as well as an organizational
Introduction
level. In fact job satisfaction is very critical for organizational efficiency
since it is possibly associated with low rates of absences and turnover
(Sundstrom, 1986). Taken the above mentioned factors together it is
important for this doctoral work to investigate the office environment’s
influence on employees’ job satisfaction. In addition to this it is also
important to investigate the employees’ perception and satisfaction with
office environments in different office types. This doctoral thesis thus
studies environmental factors and psychological responses associated
with office environments. Which aspects of the office environment the
employees perceive as most satisfying or troublesome in different office
types is also investigated. This is not only done in order to detect what
importance different environmental factors have on the environmental
satisfaction, but is also done due to their possible influence on the
employees’ health status and job satisfaction.
Besides the above mentioned purposes this thesis also sets out to
investigate employees’ perception of their workplaces and organizations
based on the architectural design of the office. This is done in order
to see what role it may play for these sometimes decisive matters not
only for the employees’ job satisfaction and health and well-being, but
also for the welfare of the organization as a whole. In the investigation
of the architectural design’s importance in this regard, special attention
is paid to the quality of the architectural design and to the two main
components of architecture—its aesthetical and functional dimensions.
The fact that I share my time between research and practice, and
in my work as a practicing architect specialized on office buildings and
interior office environments has undoubtedly played a major influence
on this research project. Through the years of practicing architecture
and continued education I never came across any course or discussion
about how people perceive and experience different environments, nor
which implications this may have on the users. The psychological aspect
of the spaces I, as an architect, designed was never on the agenda. I
specifically recall my position as the leading architect in a project dealing
with a larger office building the years before I had the opportunity to
start my research. Through this project, it became increasingly evident
to me that important aspects in the design process were lacking. In the
design of the new office building the parties involved in the project
never discussed the goal with the architecture. Instead the discussions
concerned mainly economical and practical aspects. If the architectural
design was discussed at all it was always with regard to issues such as
trends and taste preferences or economical issues in connection with
architectural features. The overall goal—how to create a supportive work

2
 3
environment, supportive to the employees and the organization - was

Introduction
never on the agenda. This was unfortunate since; after all, the ultimate
performance in an organization depends on the individual members and
their efforts.
When, in September 2002, I had the opportunity to start this
research project, it soon became evident that studying the office
environment from a strictly architectural point of view was not possible.
I realized that my field of research was not only within the field of
architecture, as the primary focus was on employees and its possible
impact on their welfare as well as organizations out of different aspect.
The research issues were actually interdisciplinary and spanning several
discipl­­­ines such as: 1) organizational-oriented research, 2) environmental
psychology, and 3) occupational health including social and stress
medicine. Thus aiming to investigate the physical environment of offices
and its influence on the employees and organizations out of a health,
job satisfaction and experience perspective all three fields of research are
important to consider.

1.1 Overview of Dissertation

The overarching aim of this doctoral thesis is to investigate the office
environment’s influence on employees’ and organizations. In order
to do so it focuses on two aspects of environmental influences: 1) its
impact on office employees’ health, well-being and job satisfaction, as
well as environmental satisfaction, and 2) its impact on the employees’
perception of the own workplace and the organization as a whole.
In order to investigate the overall hypothesis that the office
environment has an influence on these aspects, it has also been necessary
to look at how employees perceive and experience the office environments
from an architectural point of view. There are physical and functional
conditions at an office which dictate the architectural and functional
features of the office design, which together define an office type.
These two features have in this work been given the role of explanatory
variables in the analysis. More specifically, with regard to the first focus
of the thesis the satisfaction with single environmental factors in office
environment among employees in different office types are investigated.
In addition, the frequency of complaints in different domains of
environmental factors has been investigated. This has been done in order
to understand which factors the employees are most satisfied/dissatisfied
with and also to see if there are any differences among employees in
diverse office types in this respect. In addition to this the physical office
environments’ influence on employees´ health status and job satisfaction
is also investigated in the thesis with the same approach to the matter.

3
 4
Health status is in this work defined as self rated sick-leave, general health
Introduction
as well as emotional health. Job satisfaction is defined by the employee’s
perception of the psychosocial work environment as well as attitude
towards work itself.
The first section of this doctoral thesis is compromised of
three chapters. In brief the first section provides a framework for the
five articles included in the dissertation. Its first chapter provides an
introduction to the thesis followed by a second chapter that gives an
overview of the multi-disciplinary field of environmental influences in
office environments. The historical background of office designs is also
described here within a Swedish context. The third chapter ‘Research
project’ presents the basis as well as its empirical data of the project.
It describes the research objectives, methods used and choices made
with respect to limitations in the research project. A simplified model
for analysis is described as well as. In the final part of this chapter an
overview of the project and its five articles are done. The concluding
discussion presents the major findings and contributions of the research
project, but also its shortcomings and limitations and possible directions
for future research. This first section of the doctoral thesis is followed
by references and appendices.
The second and also last section of the doctoral thesis comprises
the five individual articles. Article II and IV are written in collaboration
with statistician Lennart Bodin, my co-supervisor, who also has done the
statistical analysis presented in the thesis.

4
2 A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research;
THE OFFICE ENVIRONMENT’S INFLUENCE

The physical environment is fundamental to our perception of the world

and the work environment constitutes a major part of our daily lives. Our
surrounding environment is perceived and evaluated through impressions
based on our sight, hearing and touch and further emotionally evaluated
by our intellect (Lynch, 1960). Lynch explains the intellectual evaluation
of the environment as when you see a door you first recognize it, and
then you understand and interpret it as a door with its specific function.
The creation of an environmental image is a two-way process between
the observer and the observed.
Besides architecture, the fields of research that deal with the
environment and its influence on humans in an office setting are: 1)
organizational-oriented research, 2) environmental psychology, and
3) occupational health, which includes fields such as social and stress
medicine. The four fields, though they apply different approaches to the
subject, share the insight and recognition of the architecture’s importance
for organizations and their members. The different fields of research
apply different perspectives and scales to the subject of the architecture’s
environmental influence on the individual and the organization as a
whole.
It is only the field of architecture that uses the term architecture
to describe the built environment surrounding us. The other fields use
terms such as physical environment or physical setting to describe the
same subject. As this doctoral thesis has its foundation in architecture
the term architecture will mainly be used to describe the physical
environment. Another reason for using the term is that I see office
research as a cohesive field of research, in other words a field of research
that holds multidisciplinary problems.

5
 6
2.1 An Organizational and
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

Management Approach
Most organizations and businesses operate in office buildings which sets
the conditions for the activities performed in the building. Even though
the architectural design does not by itself determine the behavior and well-
being of the employees, it has an impact through its aesthetic, functional
and social implications on the social arena of the organization and group
constellations, i.e. on interaction and cooperation among employees.
What unites the eclectic field of organizational theories that recognize the
architecture’s importance for organizations is their recognition of it as a
possible mean to achieve higher productivity or creativity. The symbolic
implication of the office design on the individual’s perception of the
workplace and its own organization has gained architecture additional
interest from organizational-oriented research. The field applies both an
individual and an organizational perspective to environmental influences
and its scholars deal with individual and group as well as organizational
outcomes. The organizational and management interest in architecture is
expressed in research through a wide range of perspectives to its benefits
from an organizational and management point of view. So does e.g.
Kupritz’ (2002) regard the workplace design as a key factor in the human
resource development training in corporate business. Whereas Pfeffer
(1997) who is interested in the social dimension of work recognizes the
role of architecture in social situations. Baldry et al. (1997) on the other
hand relate employees’ well-being, productivity, and work processes to
the physical work environment. Most of the researchers that investigate
the architecture´s impact on organizations are however not found within
the management field but within the design and behavior fields (L.
Cohen, 2007). What unites the theorists that apply an organizational and
management perspective to architecture independent of their background
is their acknowledgement of the fact that organizations mainly consists
of people, thus the effectiveness and success of organizations is highly
dependent on employees’ efforts. They view architecture as one factor
in increasing employees’ effort. Becker has expressed it this way: “In the
short run, productivity defined in terms of strict output measures may
make sense, but in the long run, the absenteeism and turnover stimulated
by the changes required to obtain high productivity in the short run may
impose a significant cost on the organization’ (Becker, 1981, p. 94).

6
 7
2.2 An Environmental Psychology Approach

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

The interest of how the environment interacts with the individual through
physical stimuli posed by environmental factors engages a certain field of
psychology called environmental psychology. One of many definitions
to environmental psychology is:

“Environmental psychology is the study of the interrelationship between

behavior and experience and the built and natural environment.”
(Bell, Fisher, Baum, & Greene, 1990, p. 7)

The field is strongly connected to architecture through a common

interest in the built environment and the concept of place; in brief, the
former focuses on its perception and environmental influence and the
latter on its design. To quote the environmental psychologist Evans the
field’s interest in the concept is expressed in research questions such as:
“How are places developed, how do they acquire meaning to people,
how are they related to people’s action, their preferences, and even to
their emotional reactions and well-being? And what does the concept
mean across generations or across cultures?“ (Evans, 1996, p. 4). The
relationship to architecture, which it grew out of, was however more
evident in its early years. This shows in work by architectural theorists
Hesselgren (1986) and Lynch (1960) as well as in the early work by the
architectural psychologist/ environmental psychologist Canter (see e.g.,
The psychology of place, 1977).
Environmental psychology has accordingly focused on environ-
mental influences with a special interest on environmental factors and
their impact on psychological and behavioral outcomes. The area of
environmental psychology that deals with the physical work environment
applies interpersonal as well as organizational perspective to the subject.
It was developed post-Hawthorne with the growing interest in the
physical environment’s influence on employees that arose at that time.
(For the Hawthorne studies see latter section on different organizational
theories). An overview of how environmental psychology relates to the
other fields of psychology that investigates the work place is presented
in Sundstrom’s table on page 25.
The human behavior at work is especially difficult to investigate as:
a) there is a complex interaction between the individual and the physical
workspace, and b) simultaneously with this there is also a social interaction
with colleagues and management. This means that even though we, to
some extent, are surrounded by the same environmental factors at home
and at work, our perception of them and their influence on us differ due
to various contexts. We do e.g. consciously or unconsciously evaluate a
situation in a hierarchical context in an organization, which influences our
7
 8
perception of environmental factors at work. The ownership and ability
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
for control is also different. In home environments, occupants often
have full control and ownership or long-term leases with contractual
agreements, which is hardly ever the case with workspaces where the
organization maintain clear ownership and control of the physical
environment (Mazumdar, 1992).
The investigation of environmental influences is intricate and in
each case the environmental psychologists attempt to inquire how the
process between the individual and his/her physical surrounding works.
The influence can either be direct, indirect, i.e. mediating or moderating,
but due to its complexity it is common that the two latter concepts are
confused with each other. In order to reach further knowledge about the
relationship between the human and his/her surrounding environment
it is very critical to recognize the difference between a mediating process
or moderating process according to environmental psychologist Evans
(1996). In short a mediating process seeks to identify the mechanisms
that underlies an observed relationship between an independent variable,
also called predictor, and a dependent variable, also called criterion
via the inclusion of a third explanatory variable, known as a mediator
variable (MacKinnon, 2008). A mediating relationship specifies the chain
of causality and addresses questions such as ‘how?’ or ‘why?’ does the
independent variable influence the dependent variable. A moderation
processes on the other hand addresses the issue of ‘when?’, ‘for whom?’
or ‘under what condition?’ does a correlation between the independent
variable (predictor) and the dependent variable (criterion) hold true
(Beaubien, 2005).

2.3 An Occupational Health Approach

Occupational health, with its subdivision of social and stress medicine,
deals with the work environment’s influence on the individual’s health
status with regard to psychological and physiological aspects.
Though the link between the architecture and employees’ health
status is often not as direct or easy to measure as the link between the
office environment and its organizational or environmental psycho-
logical outcomes the perspective should not be excluded. Leaving out
the subject of the work environment and its impact on employees’
health status would in the context of this thesis leave important issues
unrevealed. The subject is not only of interest out of an individual or
an organizational perspective, but also to societal perspective, which the
dramatic increase of stress-related illnesses the last decades in Sweden
shows (Krantz, 2003; Lundberg & Melin, 2002).
The work environment plays a significant part in a lot of people’s

8
 9
lives. Its importance in people’s daily life has grown with the modern

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

society, where people tend to live in single households and work long
hours. The fact that the work environment plays such a significant part
in a lot of peoples’ lives makes the psychosocial environment at work
of greatest importance for health and well-being (Lenéer-Axelsson &
Thylefors, 1991). Research has e.g. shown that the psychological and
psychosocial well-being has an important impact on cardiovascular
diseases as well as other diseases correlates, and this in turn affects sick-
leaves (e.g., Hjemdahl, 2003; R. Karasek & Theorell, 1990).
More than 50 per cent of the population in the western countries
work in offices (Duffy, 1999), and the number is steadily growing. This
combined with the fact that the mental health related diseases is the
single most common reason for sick-leave among white collar workers in
Sweden today (Åsberg, Nygren, Rylander, & Rydmark, 2002) makes the
issue of the work environment for office employees highly important.
Though the work environment mainly deals with psychosocial aspects,
the physical aspect should not be excluded, as there is a constant interplay
between the two.
Humans are under the negative influence of stress at work as well
as outside of work. Researchers have e.g. established an increased stress
levels in society as a whole due to higher demands on top achievements, lean
organizations and a higher pace in working life (Krantz, 2003; Lundberg
& Melin, 2002). A reasonable amount of stress has however a positive
influence on the individual and underactivity may in fact lead to stress.
In the search to find the answer to why certain people get ill and others
remain healthy under stress the focus has mainly been on “unhealthy”
environments or unhealthy circumstances, instead of what makes people
healthy and less stressed. Stress research has assumed that recovery from
stress takes place in the absence of stressors instead of focusing on
factors that are restorative to their nature (Hartig, Böök, Garwill, Olsson,
& Gärling, 1996). Among those that have been concerned with the matter
is Evans (Evans, 2003), who has hypothesized that certain architectural
features in design elements may enhance restorative processes. It would
be features that support fascination, curiosity, or involuntary attention to
enhance recovery from mental fatigue. Example of design elements that
hold such features according to Evans are views of nature, indoor plants,
fireplaces, fountains, aquariums and animals (e.g. an aviary) as well as
paintings of landscapes and other coherent, tranquil scenes.
In order to understand how humans react to stress different types of
models have been developed that apply somewhat different perspectives
to the subject. When discussing stress at work it is inevitable to describe
some of the most known stress models that try to explain work stress.
The models do however not focus on the physical environment but apply

9
 10
a more general approach to stress. Two models apply a psychosocial
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
approach to stress; the Demand-Control model by Karasek and Theorell
(1990) and the Effort-Reward Imbalance model by Siegrist (e.g., Kuper,
Singh-Manooux, Siegrist, & Mamot, 2002; Siegrist, 2003) .The third
stress model which is more biologically oriented is called the Allostatic
Load model and developed by McEwen (McEwen & Norton Lasley,
2002) (McEwen & Norton Lasley, 2002). In brief:
- The Demand-Control model describes the stress reaction as being triggered
by perceived demands/ambitions on the one hand, and perceived ability/
resources to meet these demands and ambitions on the other hand. For
example if the work demands are high but the employee experiences no
social support or ability to control the situation, stress will occur.
- The Effort-Reward Imbalance model explains in contrast to the former
model stress as a reaction to an imbalance between the effort a person
puts into a job and the recognition he/she gets in terms of rewards from
the employer for this effort.
- The Allostatic Load model applies a biological approach to stress and
hypothesizes that over-activity, as well as under-activity of the allostatic
systems contributes to health problems. According to McEwen stress
in itself is not dangerous, stress reactions are dangerous only if the
individual is not able or capable to relax and recover from a stressful
event afterwards. It is then stress related diseases occur.
As we discuss different conditions that may lead to stress
disorders it is important to bear in mind that the sensitivity to stress
is both individual and gender related. It is e.g. well known that women
are more susceptible to stress related diseases (e.g., Chesney & Orth-
Gomér, 1998; Orth-Gomér, 2003). A possible explanation for this is
the different life conditions for men and women, as women often have
double workload since they beside normal job tend to have the main
responsibility for the household. It has e.g. been established that women
in a managerial position have higher levels of stress then men in equal
positions (Lundberg & Frankenhauser, 1999). When the women came
home from work the stress level increased among the women, while it
among the men decreased. The multiple roles situation of women has
however also benefits as it give the individual a greater perception of
being needed and a greater social network. Another gender difference is
that women to a greater extent consume medicine when stressed, while
men consume alcohol (Krantz, 2003).

2.4 An Architectural Approach

Architecture is the art and science of designing buildings and other physical
structures, including building-, interior- and landscape architecture
and urban design. It refers to all environments shaped or built by

10
 11
man. Although architecture is the major field that studies the physical

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

environment it has not been very concerned with the environment’s
influence. When investigating environmental influences the focus has
mainly been on building performance out of a functional or aesthetic
perspective from a professional point of view (Collins, 1971; Holm,
2006). The research within architecture that deals with office design´s
influence on employees is sparse. The office research that exists within
the architectural field can briefly be categorized into the following fields:
organizational-oriented research (e.g., Duffy, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c;
Duffy, 1999; Söderberg, 1993, 2003), communication oriented research
(e.g. Penn, Desyllas, & Vaughan, 1999), spatial oriented research (e.g.
Grajewski, 1993; Peponis & Shpuza, 2008), and workplace planning
oriented research (e.g. Ahlin & Westlander, 1991).
The exterior design of office buildings as well as their interior
layout of rooms has changed over time with different trends in society
and the architects’ ambition has been to find the most efficient office
layout in line with the current trend. Some organizational theorists
have had a great impact on office design and office work, e.g. Fredrick
Taylor and Henri Fayol (for more details see latter section on different
organizational theories). Taylor´s theory ‘scientific management’ is
considered to be the most influential theory for office design (Duffy,
1999) with its strict hierarchies and control of employees, which were not
trusted by the management. In short it is organizational and management
theories that together with technological inventions especially within the
field of telecommunication that have led the development of the office
design (e.g., Ahlin & Westlander, 1991) .
Two traditions within the architectural design of office can be
identified—the northern European tradition and the North American
tradition (Duffy, 1999). The North American tradition includes countries
such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Pacific
Rim cities such as Tokyo, Hong Kong etc. This tradition focuses more
on management and efficiency and office buildings are used as symbols
of economic strength and prosperity. The architectural design has often
been in the corporate International style. The other design tradition—the
northern European includes the Nordic countries but also the former
West-Germany and the Netherlands. The emphasis within this tradition
has been on the site location and the work environment. The latter
emphasis is probably due to the wide range of labor legislations that
admits the employees´ co-determination at the workplace in the countries
 Within this field you mainly find conference proceedings, e.g. Steen, J. (2009) Spa-
tial and social configurations in offices. Proceedings of the 7th International Sym-
posium on Space Syntax, Stockholm, Sweden. http://www.sss7.org/Proceedings/
04%20Building%20Morphology%20and%20Emergent%20Performativity/10_Steen.pdf

11
 12
within this office tradition (Duffy, 1999), e.g. the Act on Co-determination
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
at Work in Sweden (in Swedish MBL, Lagen om medbestämmande).
In this review of the architectural approach to the office the focus
is on the development of different office types presented in an historical
context. The review is based in Sweden, thus within the northern
European design tradition, as the research project was conducted in
Sweden and the Swedish conditions are more known to the author.
The need of offices came with the development of industrial
production and manufacturing. The clerical work during these early
days took place in suitable rooms within the homes of the bourgeois
class that owned the industries as no specific buildings were assigned to
administrative work (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). The tradition to
locate the administrative work next to the production plants continued
as the first larger companies in the early days of Swedish industrialism
in the 1880 moved to central locations in the cities, e.g. Separator
(later Alfa Laval) and LM Ericsson (later Ericsson). To design specific
office buildings did not become common in Sweden until the late 19th
century when the first so called ‘office palaces’ appeared in the larger
city centers in the United Kingdom and the United States in the mid
1800s (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998; Duffy, 1999). In Sweden the
first office palace built was built by the banker Wallenberg in Stockholm
1863, in the Old Town, the city center at the time. With it started a trend
to have the clerks working in large office spaces behind a counter. The
banker and the board had their private offices located in separate rooms
adjacent to the larger office space.
The first open plan offices were not very large but they became
gradually larger with the introduction of the new architectural style called
the Chicago School from the United States. It emerged with the new
technology at the time—the steel-frame construction—which made it
possible to build without supporting walls and thus change office space
easily after the tenants’ needs. An additional factor for the development
of the open offices was the development of the fluorescent lighting
in 1895. It made the plan layout of offices less dependent on natural
daylight, and the whole depth of the building could be used for light
sensitive office work. The first office built in this style in Sweden was
Centralpalatset (The Central place), constructed around 1896-99 by the
architect Stenhammar. It became a model for future office buildings due
to its flexibility through the new construction system.
At the beginning of last century the largest offices were found
in banking with an average of about thirty employees per office. The
workforce was male, with only one out of five or six employees being
a woman. It was a higher percentage of women found in the insurance

12
 13
companies (Bedoire, 1979).

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

The most important book for office design—Taylor’s book on
scientific management—was published in Sweden in 1913. It was
succeeded by other books of great importance for office design such
as Leffingwell´s book ‘Scientific Office Management’ published in 1917
and Galloway´s book ‘Office Management, its Principles and Practice’
published in 1918. The idea was to find general rules that described all
kind of office work in detail in order to find methods to rationalize the
work by ‘office automations’. This idea was quickly picked up by the
Swedish association for employers, Industriförbundet (the Industrial
Association), precursor to the contemporary Confederation of Swedish
Enterprise. During and after World War I it became established that
routine-based work preferably should take place in large open spaces,
so called ‘Bullpens’ under the strict supervision of management through
the influence of these management specialists. It was prescribed that the
more qualified office work took place in single office rooms, so called
‘cell-offices’. There were several reasons for the breakthrough of these
new ideas of office design: 1) the lack of workforce and thus a necessity to
rationalize clerical work, 2) the growth of administrative work in business
overall; and 3) women´s entry on the labor market (Ahlin & Westlander,
1991; Bedoire, 1979). The former status of clerical work had declined
as the work at the offices became more or less machine-like in line with
Taylor’s theory and the other theorists. Three years before Taylor’s book
was published in Swedish the first office building designed in accordance
with his ideas was built in Sweden for Trygg (later Trygg-Hansa) by the
architect Lallerstedt. The office spaces consisted of twenty or so smaller
office rooms and a 450 m² large open office space with a glassed ceiling.
About one hundred clerks worked here and eight departmental managers
supervised the office work.
Exhibitions about the ‘modern office’ were arranged in Sweden
1929 and 1935 (Bedoire, 1979). It was advocated that office buildings
should be organized for large pools of office workers in rows under the
supervision of a manager. An analytic and engineer-like approach toward
architecture was established during this period. Career progress, in line
with office design, followed a chronometer-like precision that was marked
by a gradual reception of rewards after a well-defined pattern. The idea
of very large open plan offices for the routine-based clerical staff, often
a female workforce, was now established. However, despite all efforts the
Bullpen concept never grew particularly popular in Sweden. One of the
reasons for this was that office work was often organized around smaller
work units.
Parallel with the different trends in office architecture the structure

13
 14
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research of the labor market had changed drastically during this period, the
amount of white-collar workers grew by 300 per cent from 1910 to 1930
in Sweden. By the 1930’s the office employees in the private sector was
about 250 000 people (Bedoire, 1979).
The architects focus during the early 20th century in office design
had mainly been on flexible plan layouts and not on the employees’ work
environment. This lead to less suitable work environments and criticism
gradually arose against the situation. By the 1930s criticism against the
fixation on flexible plan layouts started to appear among architects as
well, with the architect Tengbom in the lead. He introduced the idea
of double-sided corridors with individual cell-offices along the facades
and facilities in the core of the building. It was presented for the first
time in his building Citypalatset (The City Palace). The architecture was
influenced by the new modernistic movement, which had its breakthrough
in Sweden in the 1930s as well. In 1935 an important article by Carlman
(1935) on office planning was publishing in the journal Byggmästaren
(The Builder), the precursor to Arkitektur (The Swedish Architectural
Review). The article introduced the Swedish audience to the Philadelphia
Saving Fund Society Building, the first International style skyscraper built
in the United States by the architects Howe & Lescaze. The building
represented a new trend in office design which was very different to the
Bullpen-offices. The plan layout of PSFS Building was developed around
the idea of how the paper works its way through different departments
of the building. The individual offices were designed with regards to
good lighting and ventilation conditions and their sizes determined by
the work carried out in the specific room. The office building provided
good service facilities for the office employees in communal areas, such
as rooms for exercise and dining areas etc. The PSFS Building influenced
the Swedish office architecture in two ways: 1) from now on modern office
building should be tall, so-called skyscrapers, in order to signal modernity,
and 2) the concept of office work became synonymous with working in
an individual room, so-called cell-offices, after the Second World War in
Sweden. The connection between architectural design and rationalized
office work was now established. The first Swedish office building based
on ideas of the paper’s way through the office was built for the insurance
company Thule by architect Clason. It was built in 1938-40 on Sveavägen,
the prominent boulevard in central Stockholm. The rationalizing of the
office work was now done by the grouping of the workstations by new
mechanical and technical equipment. The departments were carefully
investigated and qualified work was separated from routine based work.
After the Second WW a new era entered office design in Sweden
with the introduction of computers and Automatic Data Processing
(ADP). This did not only change the work conditions at the office but
 Ivar Tengbom (1878-1968)
14
 15
also changed the design of office buildings towards really tall building.

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

The office building for the publisher Bonnier designed in 1949 by father
and son, Ivar and Anders Tengbom with its 21 stories and its plan
layout with individual cell- offices along the facades was unmistakably
influenced by the tall PSFS Building. The Bonnier Building became
the raw model for the office buildings to come with its height and the
placement of elevators, staircases and necessary installations in the core
of the building.
It is not established when the cell-office was ‘invented’ and who
its inventor was as it developed gradually over time. By the 1950s it was
however the dominating plan model for office buildings (Nyströmer,
1956). The trend during this decade was to ­­­­ build tall office buildings.
The most known office buildings from this period in Sweden are: the
building for the insurance company Folksam in Stockholm, by the
architects Eriksson & Tegnér, Skattehuset (the Tax Authority Building)
in Stockholm and the building for the shipbuilder Kockums in Malmö
both by architect Paul Hedqvist and the WennerGren Center Building
in Stockholm by the architects Lindström & Bydén (Ahlberg, 1980;
Bedoire, 1979). The architects´ efforts and ambitions were put into the
communal spaces such as high-class entrance halls, conference rooms and
the dining rooms; but not into the design of the individual cell-offices.
The difference to the earlier Thule Building is in this regard remarkable,
according to Bedoire (1979).
Then in the mid-1960s with the need for rationalization the
open plan office was back again in the shape of Bürolandschaft (office
landscape). It was now however presented in a new version by the
‘Quickborner Team für Planung und Organisation’ from the former
West Germany. Their first office with the new type of office landscape
was designed for a company called Behringer in Mannheim in 1960. They
successfully promoted the office type as something new and different to
the earlier criticized Bullpens. The idea was to change the construction
of the office building and do away with the cell-offices in an attempt
to facilitate communication through physical accessibility of office
employees. They intended to achieve a more ‘efficient organization’
by increasing the interaction and transaction of information among
employees (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). The idea had grown out
of the human relations movement in the philosophy of management
(Sundstrom, 1986), though it was the introduction of better fluorescent
lighting systems, central air-conditioning and acoustic ceilings that made
it possible.
The architectural design of the office buildings changed with the
new open plan office, short buildings were now designed as opposed to
the earlier taller office buildings. Originally supervisors and managers
 Anders Tengbom (1911-2009)
15
16
at higher positions were also intended to sit in the office landscape,
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
which had not been the case before. This idea about a more democratic
organization without a visual hierarchy attracted a lot of people during
this era (Bedoire, 1979). A more efficient organization with regard to
communication and interaction was not the only aim; it was also to
lower the cost per square meter per employee and to be able to meet
organizational changes easily without any reconstruction. This was
made possible with larger floor plans and greater ceiling height. At the
time they thought they had a satisfactory solution to the environmental
problem connected to the office type. In Sweden it was said that the
office should fulfill the so called 4L-qualities: noise, lighting, air-quality
and layout (in Swedish: ljud, ljus, luft and layout) (Ahlin & Westlander,
1991). Neither windows nor individual lighting by the workstation
were considered necessary for good work conditions. Instead a general
artificial lighting system for the whole office at high strengths, up to 2000
lux was promoted. Acoustic problems were solved with acoustic panels
and textile flooring. The workstations were grouped in organic shapes
in order to achieve some privacy by avoiding direct eye contact between
workstations and communication paths twisted like paths in a natural
landscape.
The new open plan office grew quickly in popularity in Sweden
as famous architects adapted the concept. In 1965 architect Anders
Tengbom published a proposal for a new office building for the insurance
company Trygg-Hansa in the journal Arkitektur, 1965/3 (The Swedish
Architectural Review). The proposal was highly influenced by a trip he
had done to the former West Germany to study the new office type.
It was, however, Volvo who built the first well known large open plan
office in the new style in Sweden. It was built 1965-67 in the suburb of
Torslanda, outside of Gothenburg by the architects Lund & Valentin
(Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998; Olsson, 1967). Enthusiasm and
ambition was high with the project as Volvo was in a phase of expansion
just like the Swedish economy at the time. According to the Swiss office
consultant Raoul Illig, that assisted Volvo in the design process, it was
necessary for a dynamic and expansive company like Volvo to work in
an office landscape in order to facilitate transference of information
and interaction (Illig, 1967). Being a car manufacturer Volvo applied
an engineer-like approach to the building process. When finished, the
office was considered to resemble the Volvo car itself, due to its careful
detailing, lack of luxury and very efficient but not very adventurous
design (Olsson, 1967).
Swedish literature that was published in the 1960s on the new open
plan office was mainly handbooks, e.g. Ottosson’s book (1967) on office
landscape and rationalization. In accordance with the strong open plan

16
 17
trend the formerly so modern Thule Building that had held both open

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

plan offices and cell-offices was in the late 1960s converted into the new
version open plan office as the insurance company Skandia moved into
the building. The final establishment in Sweden of the new office concept
came with ‘Postgirohuset,’ a house for a division within the Post Office
Administration situated in Stockholm. It was built between1968-71 by
the architect firm Ancker, Gate & Lindegren with assistance from the
Quickborner Team. To be able to achieve great flexibility a module ceiling
with movable lamps and acoustic plates were used, and the ‘electrical
wiring’ was taken down from the ceiling and moved to the workstation,
which was something new at the time.
The scientific knowledge of the office design´s impact on
employees and organization was limited, but in 1966 the large ‘Office
environment inquiry’ (Kontorsmiljöutredningen) had been published. It
mainly dealt with the cell-office, but different types of open plan offices
were also investigated (Wolger & Wiedling, 1970). This inquiry together
with other research that was published during this period showed that
open plan office was combined with higher risks of extra strain for the
employees, especially for those with more qualified work (see review in
Ahlin & Westlander, 1991). This research combined with the growth of an
employee-oriented work life policy in Sweden lead to a growing criticism
against the open plan offices in the mid 1970s, which made the return of
the cell-office possible (Bedoire, 1979). Though the new open plan office
was supposed to be more democratic, it was according to employees still
an expression of surveillance by the management since it despite all
efforts resembled the Bullpens of old times to some extent. Both office
types meant that employees shared workspaces, often large ones. In the
new open plan offices the employees were, however, neither arranged in
lines nor under the surveillance of a supervisor in an office or on a floor
above. They also held communal spaces for breaks, telephone calls or
meetings to some extent. In accordance with this movement, the Trygg-
Hansa office building that was in Anders Tengbom’s original sketches
published in the journal Arkitektur 1965 designed as a new open plan
office was now redesigned. When completed in 1976 on Kungsholmen
in central Stockholm it was built as an office with both open plan offices
and cell-offices in a double corridor plan layouts with double corridors.
In 1972 an important office building in the debate concerning
good work environment was built by the architect Hertzberger for the
administration office (the Centraal Beheer Offices) in Appeldoorn, the
Nederlands. It was designed in northern European tradition and the
start of a movement against the conformity in office design that had
developed during the past decades. Personal expressions and modification
of the workstation in accordance with the individual employee’s personal

17
18
preference was encouraged. The workstations were gathered into smaller
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
groups and every workstation admitted privacy as well as openness
as each space was well-defined in the larger communal space. The
workstations were designed to hold a home-like atmosphere as opposed
to the established corporate office architecture whose architecture not
only is indifferent and anonymous but also expresses the individual´s
rank in the organization (Budd, 2001; Duffy, 1999). As a contribution
to the discussion on good work environments in offices a third office
type, combi-office, was introduced in the late 1970s by the architect
Sjöman in the design journal Form, in 1977. (For office definitions see
Chapter 3 ‘Research project’). The idea of combi-office was to combine
the advantages of cell-offices and open plan offices, but avoid their
disadvantages. The cell-office was not considered to be space efficient
and the open plan office on the other hand was criticized for problems
with noise and lack of privacy. By 1978 the first actual combi-office was
built for the company Canon, in Sätra outside of Stockholm, by the
architectural firm Tengbom (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). It was
a low building; only three stories high, with an atrium in its middle that
admitted daylight to all the communally shared spaces in the core of the
building. Walls of windows connected the individual offices with this
communal multi area outside the rooms. Ten years later, in 1988 the most
known combi-office in Sweden was built by the Norwegian architect
Torp for the SAS Airlines headquarter in Frösundavik, Stockholm. For
many years it was regarded as the raw model for good office design. Jan
Carlzon, the CEO at the time was very involved in the building project.
Originally every employee had an own office with a glazed wall towards a
corridor on one side and a window on the other side towards the exterior
or to the ‘interior street,’ around which the whole building was oriented.
The corridors outside the office rooms expanded to large communal
spaces, called ‘multi-spaces’. All together the fairly large private offices,
the shared multi-spaces and the interior street lead to a fairly substantial
amount of square meters per employee. Due to this the building has gone
through different reconstructions since the year 2000 in order to become
more cost efficient. In 2010 the company finally decided to vacate the
building for the same reason.
Cell-office was the dominant office type in Sweden in the 1980s,
despite the introduction of the new combi-office and the growing demands
of interaction and transaction of information among employees. It was
well established as being the best office type from a work- environment
perspective. Privacy, which this office type provides so well for, was
not only considered important at the time it was considered a basic
human need as well (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). The economical

18
 19
advantages of the open plan office were outweighed by work environment

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

issues that were considered more important.
When discussing the development of different office types the rise
of new technologies has to be incorporated as it has highly influenced the
nature of the work being performed in offices and hereby their design.
The spread of computers with the automatic data processing (ADP) and
video display terminals (VDTs) in the 1960s and the advanced work-
processing technology in the 1970s and 1980s marked a shift away
from the use of paper as the medium for exchanging information. The
research focuses at this time were: a) on computers and their impact on
employees´ work situation, e.g. their health status and performance, and
b) on what impact the new office equipment would have on the future
office work. The more traditional architectural issues were left a side for
questions concerning psychology, ergonomics, economics and computer
science and architectural research became a workplace oriented field of
research (Ahlin & Westlander, 1991).
By the 1990s new technology lead to the development of an
office type that was independent of time and space, the so-called flex-
office. The ideas with the office type are that: a) a common computer
system with all work is accessible from all workstations and from outside
the office, b) the employees hold no individual workstation as they are
expected to work from outside the office to some extent, and c) in order
to cut down costs the flex-offices are dimensioned for only 60-70%
of the workforce. All personal working material is stored in personal
cupboards at the office. Among the most known flex-offices designed
during the 1980s are that of the computer consultancy company Enator
(later TietoEnator) and Digital Equipment AB. Enator’s office was built
1985 in Kista, outside of Stockholm by the architectural firm VBB and
the interior architects Ahlsén & Lindström. Enator used the office in the
marketing of the firm, but most of all to boost the internal atmosphere
and organizational climate (Alvesson, 2000). To use the office as a means
to increase employees´ loyalty towards the organization, like Enator and
also formerly described SAS was something new that came with the
economic boom in the 1980s according to Ahlin & Westlander (1991).
The most known flex-office is Digital Equipment´s office in Solna outside
of Stockholm as it went to the extreme in terms of flexibility. Just like
Enator the office was used as a strategic tool to enhance the company’s
image, though Digital Equipment only used it in its external marketing.
In the late 1990’s the criticism against flex-offices grew strong
and the office type was considered inhuman, as the employees had no
personal workstations. In the first decade of the 21st century it appears
to be back, however with more careful gestures. It is now established
that the office type demands a very conscious management style and that

19
20
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research the working methods of the organization have be in line with the office
type in order to function well. The main goal for choosing this office
type thus should not be to cut down on square meter per employee but
to find an office type that focuses on efficiency and flexibility instead of
when and where the work is carried out. Due to the ability to cut down
on square meters with flex-office it will most likely become a popular
office type among businesses in competitive markets where the work is
highly individual and independent. So does e.g. Hoffman, the director
of the foreign correspondence department at The Washington Post, in
an interview in the fall of 2009 describes his newspaper´s need of new
working methods (Ohlsson, 2009). He foresees that the numbers of
offices for corresponding journalists will either reduce or disappear in
the future.
Since the beginning of the 21st century so called ‘hotel offices’
have been launched. They offer small businesses the opportunity to rent
office space in a building and share common work facilities with other
tenants; an idea not too dissimilar from the apartment offices in the early
days of office history in the 19th century. These new hotel offices offer
access to the most modern technology for a reasonable rent, which is
made possible by the fact that the costs are shared between the tenants.
A new version of ‘office hoteling’ where people work in cafés instead of
rented office space started to appear in San Francisco, U.S.A. a decade
ago. It has since then spread and become popular among independent,
digitalized entrepreneurs in the urban areas of the world. For the cost
of a cup of coffee or lunch these new nomads of the digital era ‘rent’
workspace and internet access. A more regulated version of having the
office at a café have lately appear where office space, access to internet,
printers and meeting rooms is offered at cafés for a monthly fee. One
of the first known ‘café offices’ of this kind in Sweden is the ‘Coffice,
’ which is run by a group of landscape architects called Combine in
Stockholm (Rehnfeldt, 2010).

2.5 A Changeable World with New Conditions

When investigating office environments and their influence on employees
and organizations, one has to take into account the extensive changes
the labor market has gone through in Western society during the 20th
century, from the industrialism to a global labor market. These changes
have had long gone consequences for working life at an individual and
organizational level— questions all at issue in this doctoral thesis.
In the new global economy the workforce has become a product
that can be priced to dump just like any other product (Braverman in
Allvin, Aronsson, Hagström, Johansson, & Lundberg, 2006). As a
consequence of this salaries drop when the supply of workers are greater

20
 21
than the demand and vice versa in times of shortage, thus it is often more

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

profitable for the companies to offer temporary employment. Paralleling
this trend, we see more traditional management responsibilities such as
planning and executing work moved from the employer to lower levels in
organizations such as the work team and the individual levels. Although
this new order mainly is found in consultancy firms in the IT/media or
management sector, worldwide companies have adapted this approach
as well (Allvin et al., 2006). The new conditions of the labor market
means that the individual employee, besides being willing to take on
more responsibilities in order to ‘survive, ’ must also: a) make sure to be
demanded on the market by always being up dated, b) cultivate a network
of contacts, and c) always provide good service for clients in order not
to lose them. Due to this emphasis, the new era is called the ‘Knowledge
Society’ though the name ‘Service Society’ might be just as adequate as
the focus even among producers is more and more on the service offered
to clients.
With the changed emphasis in society, new demands have been
put on individuals as well as on organizations. The majority of work
carried out in the Knowledge Society is office work with an emphasis on
mental work, which may lead to mental stress for the individual. This is
e.g. the risk with a heavy workload combined with unclear demands. A
heavy workload itself may also lead to mental stress if the individual find
it difficult to stop thinking about work in the spare time and does not
prioritize natural breaks from work, something very important to health
and the ability to cope with high demands. An additional risk factor in
modern society is that most of our wakening hours tend to involve mental
activity and the average arousal level has supposedly increased. In fact,
researchers talk today about a new type of mental stress called ‘techno-
stress’. An additional stress factor is that the technological development
makes us within constant reach and contact, which has changed the work
conditions to a great extent (Johansson, 2002). There are however not
only risks with the advances in the information and communication
technologies (ICT), for some employees it provides more freedom in
how, when and where to perform the work, something that is referred
to as ‘flexibility by trust’ or empowerment (Allvin et al., 2006). An
obvious advantage of this is that it makes it easier to plan family life. For
organizations the new demands that have come with the global market
and Knowledge Society means that they need to be innovative and creative
in order to survive the competition. Ultimately the employees must hold
these abilities. The organizations must also always be ready for change as
the conditions quickly change on the global market.
Parallel with the dramatic change of the conditions for both
individuals and organizations the past decades, the office work has got

21
22
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research a more dominant part in the personal life of a lot of people as well as
in society as a whole. It is a consequence of that we spend more and
more of our waking hours working (Mustard, Lavis, & Ostry, 2006), and
a majority of the work is today office work in Western society (Duffy,
1999). Besides this it has to be taken into consideration that the formerly
described sharp border between work and home in many cases has
disappeared. An example of this is the so called telecommuting, also
called home-based telework, which has given the office a new role for
both employees and organization. The office has become more of a home
harbor where employees go to meet colleagues and to get information
and for the organization it has become an arena where one influences
and inspires the employees. The impact of all the described changes on
employees and organizations has implications on several aspects within
the area of this doctoral thesis.
DIFFERENT TIMES — DIFFERENT THEORIES
As the conditions of the world have changed different approaches to
understand it out of organizational and management perspectives have
emerged. In 1911 the book ‘Principles of Scientific Management’ by
Taylor was published in the United States. This was to become one
of the most influential organizational theories in modern industrial
history as its influence on industrial work environments and office
environments cannot be overestimated (Duffy, 1999). Taylor developed
the theory as an approach to handling production efficiently in factories
during his work with production at the Bethlehem Steel Mills and the
Ford Industries assembly line. It includes several principles of how
to guide organizational practices, it advocates a rationalized, routine-
based work with a high degree of specialization in order to achieve a
more efficient production (Spector, 2006). Despite the importance of
Scientific Management the work by Fayol should in this context not
be underestimated. This French organizational theorist recognized the
importance of administration for the success of larger organizations.
According to his administrative principles the individual should obey
the organization and its management; interaction should thus always be
vertically and not horizontally structured in an organization. Together
these two men ‘invented’ management rules that have completely
dominated working life in the 20th century and led to organizations
that are hierarchically and sequentially ordered (Allvin et al., 2006). The
management’s interest in the physical office environment came through
their theories primarily focus on design aspects that would facilitate: a)
supervision of the workforce (e.g. direct surveillance and monitoring
of the employees) and b) the coordination of work. The outcome was
office employees arranged in long rows in a large workspace with the

22
 23
supervisor placed in a glassed office surveilling the workforce and the

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

progress of work, so called Bullpen-offices. The office architecture
played thus a central role in these management theories (e.g., Bedoire,
1979; Sundstrom, 1986)
In terms of studies, the single most important research project for
the recognition of the environment as an important factor in management
are the well known Hawthorne Studies, which took place at the Western
Electric Company from 1924-1932. The Hawthorne researchers dis-
covered that many social aspects of organizational life affected employee
behavior and performance. The best known Hawthorne study is the
investigation of lighting-level effects (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939).
The result from this specific study was interpreted as that the employees’
changes in behavior were due to the notion of change rather than a result
of the actual environmental changes made. The employees’ perception
that management was concerned with their work environment and thus
their welfare was interpreted as the reason for steadily increasing results
at the department where the experiment took place. This phenomenon
has come to be called the ‘Hawthorne effect’ (Spector, 2006). Though
the Hawthorne studies have been criticized due to methodological and
interpretational reasons human behavior could after this no longer
be investigated isolated from the social and physical context. Instead
the social context, including group influences, social status, informal
communication and norms was incorporated and embedded with the
architecture (Becker, 1981; Sundstrom, 1986).
Besides the Hawthorne studies, the Two-Factor theory by Herzberg
has played a major part in the recognition of the architecture from an
employee point of view. It plays an important component in Herzberg
and his colleagues’ theory from 1959, presented in the book ‘Work
Motivation’ (2003). The theory makes a distinction between factors that
lead to: a) high job satisfaction and work motivation, called motivators, or
satisfiers, and b) factors that lead to dissatisfaction, called hygiene factors,
or dissatisfiers. For an acceptable level of job satisfaction among employees
the hygiene factors have to be adequate. It is however not possible
to improve it with hygien factors such as physical work environment,
salary and other material benefits; for this you need motivators like
work assignments, personal development as well as good leadership and
cooperation (Spector, 2006). The theory means that the architectural
design plays only a decisive role if employees are less satisfied and
motivated at work as it then may have a trigging effect on dissatisfaction.
If the architecture already is fairly good an even better environment will
not enhance satisfaction, only reduce dissatisfaction according to the
theory. It must though be said that the theory has been criticized for being
badly empirically documented (Mitchell McCoy, 2002). Researchers have

23
 24
also failed to find a clear-cut distinctions between the two factors (Locke,
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
1983) and it is by some even considered to be invalid (Locke & Henne,
1986). Though the theory is controversial today it is recognized for: a)
incorporating architectural issues in organizational theory, b) leading to
the application of job enrichment in many organizations, but c) most of
all for being the basis for the well known Job Characteristics Theory by
Hackman and Oldham (1976).
Also the psychologist Maslow incorporated architecture in his
famous human behavior theory, according to Sundstrom (1986), though
he did not apply a work environment perspective to the subject. His theory
suggests that each person has a hierarchy of needs, including needs for
social relationships and personal growth and the physical environment
satisfies the basic need for shelter and security (Maslow, 1943). There
are similarities between Maslow’s theory and the Two-Factor theory as
Maslow meant that once the basic needs are satisfied, the individual gives
attention to the higher-order needs. In Maslow’s theory, the work place is
only a factor when it fails to satisfy basic needs whereas it in Herzberg’s
theory, as formerly described, the work environment is only a factor if it
is inadequate and thereby create dissatisfaction.
Some additional theorists need to be mentioned in this review of
organizational theories that through history have recognized architecture as
an important component for the welfare of individuals and organizations.
E.g. the sociologist Weber who emphasized the formal roles in human
relations implicitly recognized the importance of the architecture in a
psychological and behavioral context due to its symbolic value at the
workplace (Sundstrom, 1986). Interpersonal relationships play a major
part in some organizational theories though different perspectives are
applied to the subject. The interest for communication and social aspects
in different theories rose with the emergence of the human relations
movement, which started with the Hawthorne experiments. Since then
the belief that the office design could define and reinforce relationships
has been established though different approaches to the workplace´s
role in this interplay (Sundstrom, 1986). E.g. the social theorist Homan,
whose research concerned social behavior and interpersonal relationships,
treats the environment as a part of the technological component of an
organization. He with his interest in open plan offices recognized the
association between architecture and patterns of interaction (Ibid.). For
a more detailed picture of different psychological approaches to the
workplace see the following table.

24
 25
Approaches to the psychology of the work place

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

Fields of psychology Approaches
Pre-Hawthorne Applied psychology - Focus on ambient conditions
(especially temperature, noise, lighting)
- Individual level of analysis
- Mechanistic, deterministic model of person-
environment relationship
Post-Hawthorne - Focus on physical environment as a component
Industrial-organizational psychology of job satisfaction
- Individual, interpersonal, organizational level of analysis
- System models (especially sociotechnical system)
Human factor psychology - Focus on equipment design, ambient conditions
- Individual level of analysis, sometimes interpersonal analysis
- Reciprocal model of person-environment interaction
(man-machine system), sometimes deterministic model
Environmental psychology - Focus on offices as total environments
- Interpersonal and organizational levels of analysis
- Social-psychological and ecological model
Table of approaches to the psychology of the work place (Source: Sundstrom, 1986, p. 54).

The different fields of psychology described in the table can also be read
in a historical context, as the pre- and post-Hawthorne studies. The field
of applied psychology, which is pre-Hawthorne, applied an individual
level on the analysis and focused on ambient factors. The industrial-
organizational psychology, which is post-Hawthorne, focuses on the
physical environment from a motivational perspective and on both an
individual and organizational level. The human-factor psychology, also
post-Hawthorne, applies a more technical approach with the focus on
equipment design and ambient factors. An individual level of analysis is
mainly used and sometimes an interpersonal as well. The environmental
psychology, also post-Hawthorne, focuses on the total environment and
applies an individual psychological, interpersonal as well as organizational
levels of analysis often described in models.
Theories On Effectiveness, Performance and Creativity
Later in the 1970s and 80s the importance of architecture with regards
to organizational effectiveness and performance was emphasized more
by theorists such as Steele, Becker and Sundstrom. Steele (1973) looks
at the interior architecture from a wider perspective and examines it in
terms of its main functions as: 1) shelter and security, 2) social contact, 3)
symbolic identification, 4) task instrumentality, 5) pleasure, and 6) growth.
Becker (1981) means that architecture by facilitating the work can have

25
26
the characteristics of an environment-support-system. As such it can
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
affect both intrinsic as well as extrinsic aspects of work and as such play
an important part in organizational effectiveness. He emphasizes design
and its importance in facilitating social and communication patterns such
as feedback and performance of work tasks. According to him location
and nature of storage system have an impact on the effectiveness in work
performance, as well as noise reduction and provision of privacy that
can facilitate concentration and reduce work interruptions. See Becker’s
model of the physical setting’s contribution (i.e. architecture) and its
influence on both individual and organization value.
Organizational
Effectiveness

Absenteeism
Turnover
Performance

Satisfaction

Fatigue
Comfort Autonomy
Safety Feedback
Signficance
Information Access

Physical
setting

Model of the Physical Setting’s Contribution on Behaviors Model of the

Physical Setting’s Contribution on Behaviors (Source: Becker, 1981, p. 88).

Together Steele and Becker also have investigated how the design
supports performance (Becker & Steele, 1995). They have developed
‘organizational ecology,’ a concept they describe as a dense web
relationship that consists of spatial, technological, cultural, demographic
and work process factors. The aim is to understand how the architecture
at work may support workplace initiatives that lead to high performance,
such as teamwork, telecommuting, and cross-functional collaboration.
Sundstrom (1986) finally views the workplace through a
framework based on three levels of analysis—individual, interpersonal,
and organizational. He associates each level with: 1) different facets of
the architecture (e.g. ambient conditions, workstations, and room layout),
2) different outcomes (e.g. individual satisfaction, group cohesion, and
organizational effectiveness), and 3) different underlying key processes
(e.g. stress, attitudes, and symbolic status). The individual level of
analysis is then according to the framework associated with workstations,

26
 27
stress and job performance, whereas room layout, communication and

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

group cohesion are associated with the level of interpersonal analysis.
The interpersonal relations at the workplace can at three key levels of
analysis contribute to organizational effectiveness through: 1) individual
satisfaction or performance, 2) links with communication, and 3) support
of the organization’s structure. The evidence for such contributions is
however indirect at its best, according to Sundstrom, though support
for the hypothesis that workplace satisfaction influences employees’
job satisfaction is found (Sundstrom, Burt, & Kamp, 1980; Sundstrom,
Town, Rice, Osborn, & Brill, 1994).
In the last two decades the pressure has increased on organizations
to be innovative in order to survive on the highly competitive global market
with the emergence of the New Economy and the Knowledge Society
(Allvin et al., 2006). Thus creativity is a key factor for organizations. How
it works and is reinforced and what part architecture plays for it thereby
engage several researchers. E.g. Mitchell McCoy, an interior architect and
environmental psychologist, investigated in her thesis the allocation of
workspace for creative teams in large organizations in regard to team
members’ satisfaction and performance (McCoy, 2000). Creativity in
organizations has combined with how organizations successfully deal
with changes during uncertainties and in competitive markets also
concerned the International Workplace Studies Program (IWSP) at
Cornell University under the supervision of Becker (Becker, Sims, &
Schoss, 2003; Becker & Steele, 1995; Becker, Tennessen, & Dahl, 1997).
The Interaction Between Architecture and Organizational Structure
In Porras and Robertson’s model (1992) architecture is assigned
great importance for an organization’s success, thus included in their
framework with five key factors. It recognizes the influence of the
environment on the organization’s corporate image as it states the
purpose, direction, focus and motivation of the organization to
both its members and clients. Their model in contrast to formerly
described models does not include employee satisfaction, it applies
also a more visionary and design management oriented perspective
on architecture. Its five key factors of the model interrelate and
affect each other and the vision is the main factor — it is a tool for
the organization with regard to both short and long term goals. It
simultaniously forms and is influenced by the additional four factors:
1) organizational arrangements, 2) social factors, 3) technology and
4) physical setting, i.e. architecture. The organizational arrangements
are the formal structures that guide the coordination of people
and processes within the organization (strategies, administrative
systems, routines and reward systems). Social factors are the informal

27
28
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research characteristics of individuals and work groups, which often are difficult
to change (organizational culture, management style and interaction).
The technology is the technological systems used in the organization
combined with job design. Finally the physical setting/architectur is
the combination of space configuration, physical ambience, interior
design and overall architectural de­­­sign. See the following figure for
the interrelation between the different factors in their model.

ENVIRONMENT

Vi i
Vision

Physical setting
Organizing
Technology
arrangements

Social
factors

Model: Factors Constituting the Organizational Work Setting

(Source: Porras & Robertson, 1992, p. 729).

The sociologist and architect Söderberg (2003) who has used Porras and
Robertson’s theory in her own work argues that the space can either
support and facilitate activities, or have the opposite effect if efforts
of organizational improvement and development are done without
any consideration of the architecture. Porras & Robertson’s model is
advocated a useful method for the management to include architecture
in the vision and goals of an organization. Yet another architect Duffy
has put a lot of effort into connecting the organizational structure and
the architecture of the workplace (Duffy, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c). He
speculates in his work that the two complex qualities of organizations—
bureaucracy and interaction—are associated with two qualities of office
environments—differentiation and subdivision.

2.6 A Holistic Approach to Office Design

There is a need for a holistic approach to office design because:
a) knowledge of the environmental influences is found within different
disciplines, and b) environmental influences operate between different
factors as well as at different levels simultaneously. The importance
28
 29
of a multidisciplinary approach between the involved disciplines in

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

a work environmental context is further emphasized by the Swedish
Work Environment Act. It applies different perspectives to the work
environment, which according to Lenéer-Axelsson & Thylefors (1991)
goes into the following divisions:
- the physical work environment; that surrounds people in their
worksituation.
- the organizational work environment; deals with the formal situations,
which
dictate the decision making as well as the distribution of work.
- the social work environment; comprise the social relationships and
interactions between individuals and groups at work.
The holistic approach to office environment applied in this review
integrates the four fields that deal with its environmental influences,
which are: architecture, organizational-oriented research, environmental
psychology and occupational health. As the aim is to give a wide perspective
to the subject no differentiation between the different disciplines is
applied in this review; all research is instead described in an organizational
context. Environmental factors and environmental stressors in the office
are discussed in combination with fundamental aspect for the perception
of these. They are presented at an individual as well as at a group level
depending on their character. Though this discussion on exterior stimuli
in office environments moves over a wide field of research its starting
point is the architecture of the office and its influence on individuals
and organizations. Some aspects of great importance are only briefly
overviewed as they are more thoroughly described in the individual articles
of the thesis. This is e.g. the case concerning some of the environmental
factors as well as the discussion on Davis’ framework (1984) of physical
setting variables influencing behavior in organizations. It should also be
said that obvious environmental risk factors such as pollution (pollutants)
and bad air quality are not discussed since they are outside the field of
interest, despite their importance from an employee’s health perspective.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES IN OFFICES
The exterior stimuli from surrounding environments influence us
psychologically as well as physiologically; the office environment
accordingly influences employees and thus their organizations. Human
behavior in the work environment is difficult to investigate due to
the complex interaction between the individual and the physical
workspace on one hand and the social interaction between colleagues
and departments on the other. An additional factor that complicates
interaction further is that while organizational members need a place to
work, to which often a lot of emotions are tied, the requested workspace

29
30
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research is usually seen as a provision by the organization that it maintains clear
ownership and control (Mazumdar, 1992). Nevertheless the workplace
includes important factors such as control, functional opportunities, and
nonverbal self-expression for the individual.
A Framework to Understand Environmental Influences in Offices
Davis’ framework (1984) describes how architecture influences members
of an organization, thus here used as a starting point for a discussion on
environmental factors in an office setting. The framework divides the
physical environment, i.e. architecture, into three categories: 1) physical
structure, 2) physical stimuli, and 3) symbolic artifacts. The division
of architecture into these categories clearly emphasizes its relation to
the employees and the organization. See the following figure of Davis’
framework.

Physical Structure

ORGANIZATION
Physical Stimuli MEMBERS

Symbolic Artifacts

Physical Setting Variables influences Behavior in Organization

(Source: Davis, 1984, p. 272).

Davis’ framework and its relation to different environmental factors and

stressors in office environments are more thoroughly described in the
article ‘Office Experiences’ in this thesis.
Physical structure—can be defined as the architectural design of a
building as well as the physical placement of furnishings which influences
or regulates social interaction according to Davis’ framework (Ibid.). The
physical structure is closely connected to aspects such as communication,
privacy, group constellations etc.
Physical stimulus—is the term Davis uses for those aspects of the
architecture that intrude into the organization members’ awareness
and influences their behavior. In environmental psychology the term
environmental factor is used instead for the aspects of the environment
that give physical stimuli in an environment. The physical stimuli can have
a positive as well as negative influence on the individual. If the physical
stimuli are perceived as negative they cause frustration, difficulties in
concentrating on work as well as less satisfaction with work. Example of

30
 31
physical stimuli in an office that compete for the individual’s attention are

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

such as conversations, telephone ringing, e-mails, different objects in the
room and the surveillance by supervisor as well as by colleagues. There
are more physical stimuli in an environment with a lot of people, by the
mere fact that there are more people. When office employees experience
too much stimuli, this may cause a decline in concentration, an opinion
often expressed by employees in open plan offices (e.g., Oldham & Brass,
1979; Sundstrom et al., 1980; Sundstrom, Herbert, & Brown, 1982).
People may also experience crowding, which is an environmental stressor
related perception of density (Stokols, 1972).
Physical stimuli in the environment can arouse physical reactions
in an individual and possibly also activate behavior (Porter & Lawler,
1965). The interaction with features and properties in an environment
can be evaluated as levels of arousal, adaptation, fatigue, stress, safety, and
security. For groups, they can be evaluated as levels of communication
and collaboration, status and identity, and crowding or privacy (Mitchell
McCoy, 2002).
Symbolic artifacts—are according to Davis (1984) aspects of the
architecture that individually guide the interpretation of the social setting.
For instance, the architectural design of the office, the type and style of
furnishings, the colors of the walls, the presence or absence of carpeting,
framed certificates or photographs displayed on walls or desk—all
communicate information about the organization and the people who
work there (Ibid.). Symbolic artifacts are strongly associated to status cues
and the images of organizations. A field within organizational theory
called design management deals with these matters.
Symbolic artifacts communicate with their observers/users.
They are subject to interpretion, with both intended and unintended
consequences. One may be oblivious to them or incensed by them (Ibid.).
The reason that status plays an important role in the interpretation of the
office environment is that organizations are more or less hierarchically
structured; the members therefore measure themselves consciously or
unconsciously hierarchically in relation to others. Different means are
used to measure status in the office context, e.g. the symbolic artifacts of
an office environment. There is often a parallel between organizational
structure and the workplace. In a review of different office buildings
Duffy (1978) observed the fact that hierarchical differences were reinfor-
ced by physical differences between offices occupied by officials of
various occupational positions. Symbolic artifacts often play a part in
the sometimes hard process of changing office environment. Taking
away traditional statues symbols at the workplace may meet resistance, as
some employees then might feel deprived of their personal belongings
and identity. It is also a mean to reduce the hierarchical position of an

31
32
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research individual within an organization (Mazumdar, 1992). There is undoubtedly
a psychological dimension to status, which also may be connected to
employees’ satisfaction with the work environment (Davis, 1984).
Traditionally the impact of symbolic artifacts is used in the design of
banks, insurance companies and law firms, since their offices are used to
complement or confirm the professional status as well as meet the needs
of the clients for comfort, security, and confidentiality. The office design
should neither convey conflicting messages to employees nor clients of
an organization, thus it is important to know what function and what
purpose the office design should support (Becker, 1982).
THE PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
There are psychological concepts closely connected to environmental
factors and whether an exterior stimulus will be perceived as a threat or
not needs to be described before a discussion of different environmental
factors and stressors in the office.
Personal control—a fundamental component in all concepts closely
related to the perception of environmental factors and stressors. A
discussion on concepts related to the perception of these should
thus have its starting point in personal control. People feel better and
have better mental health when they have a sense of control of their
surroundings. When it is thwarted helplessness may occur (Banduara et
al. in Evans, 2003). Personal control refers to autonomy and it reflects the
individual’s belief regarding the extent to which he/she is able to control
or influence outcomes in life. There are tree main types of personal
control: a) behavioral (direct action on the environment), b) cognitive
(the interpretation of events), and c) decisional (having a choice among
alternative courses of action)(Averill, 1973).
Personal control can be achieved by different means psychological
as well as physically in an office environment (Lee & Brand, 2005; O´Neill,
1994; Rodin, Solomon, & Metcalf, 1978; Veitch, Gifford, 1996). It is
reinforced psychologically by enhancing: a) the feeling of autonomy and
confidence at work, b) motivation in decision-making, and c) ability to
take part in different changes at work. Physically it may be reinforced or
thwarted by the architectural design. The size, location and permeability
of rooms influence the degree of social control. Architectural features
which are inhibiting in this case are e.g. large structure, long interior
corridors and lack of rooms for privacy and concentration as well as
rooms for group and teamwork. In addition poor visual surveillance
interferes with territorial control and feelings of ownership (see review
in G. Evans, 2003). Personal control in the workplace is reinforced by
participation in the design process, the ability to control the closest work
environment and to personalize it (Evans & McCoy, 1998). Our desire
for personal control of the surrounding environment is believed to be
32
 33
a fundamental characteristic of humans (for review see e.g., Rothbaum,

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Research suggests that the experience of control
and influence at work determines the experience of privacy and crowding
in the workplace, which both are significant factors in terms of employee
affective outcomes, e.g. job satisfaction (Carlopio & Gardner, 1995).
Research has shown personal control important in relation to ambient
factors, e.g. having the possibility to individually choose which ambient
factor to improve has proved positive effect on acceptability on the overall
indoor environment (Clausen & Wyon, 2005). Besides this control may
be a key aspects in terms of creativity at work as highly creative teams is
found to be stimulated by the sense of freedom and control over work
(Mitchell McCoy, 2000).
Privacy—a concept that comes from environmental psychology
(Altman, 1976, 1977; Pennock & Chapman, 1971). The term is used to
describe anything from the need for space—visually and physically, via
psychological separation, low population density and control over space
to freedom of activity. One of the major functions of privacy is to serve
the individual’s self-identity (Altman, 1975; Westin, 1967). The need for it
is both highly individual and culturally dependent. Privacy is sometimes
classified as coping strategy as it is a mean for the individual to control
and handle environmental stress (see latter discussion). At a group level it
plays a major part in terms of communication and collaboration. There
are several definitions of privacy. Sundstrom (1986) defines it by two
categories: acoustical and visual privacy. Acoustical privacy includes speech
privacy as well as isolation from noise. Visual privacy means isolation
from unwanted observation and visual stimuli. In a work environment it
is achieved by obstructing direct visibility over workstations and sudden
appearances of visitors. Sundstrom (Ibid.) describes the three central
ideas of privacy as: 1) retreat from people, 2) control over information,
and 3) regulation of interaction.
When an individual experiences too little interaction, the result may
be isolation on the other hand too much interaction may result in crowding
(G. Evans, 1979; Stokols, 1976). The reason privacy is important in office
environments is the fact that office work to a great extent involves the
sharing of facilities and workspaces with others. The key objective in
office design is to achieve an appropriate balance between accessibility
and physical separation among employees. The office environment
should ultimately meet the employee’s needs of: 1) Need-for-Privacy
(NFP) and 2) Need-for-Socializing (NFS) when carrying out the work
(Haans, Kaiser, & de Kort, 2007).
Privacy as well as the amount of workspace has however to be viewed
in relation to the function that is performed (Marans & Spreckelmeyer,
1982). Different office types allow different degrees of acoustical and

33
34
visual privacy. The office type that offers best acoustic and visual privacy is
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
cell-office, though there are different means to achieve privacy in open plan
offices. Acoustic privacy is often more complicated to achieve than visual
privacy. The physical features that determine perception of privacy and
crowding are e.g. partitions and distance to colleagues (Charles & Veitch,
2002; Stokols, Smith, & Prost, 1975).
Research indicates that privacy correlates both with employees´
satisfaction with the workplace and job satisfaction (Sundstrom et al.,
1980). The same study found it to be more important for job satisfaction
of employees with ‘complicated jobs,’ whereas it was the opposite effect
on those with more routine based work. An explanation for this may be
status.
Privacy is strongly connected to status and importance in organizations
(Steele, 1973), often manifested by the fact that those with the highest
rank often hold private offices and are least accessible. Regarding this it is
hard to know whether it is privacy itself or the status expressed by it that
influences job satisfaction. Privacy is important out of other aspects as well,
e.g. its claimed impact on the success or failure of training interventions in
organizations (Kupritz, 2000). Most importantly the concept of privacy is
important due to its obvious relation to interaction and communication
among individuals, crucial aspects in office design.
ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS
An environment that leads to discomfort or a sense of threat for the individual
causes environmental stress. The physiologist Selye, who introduced stress
in the 1840s, divided the human reaction to stress into a defense and an
adaptation mechanism. The more recent office researcher Sundstrom (1986)
has translated Seyle´s classification into the following psychological stress
reactions that may occur among office employees as:
1) Arousal, also the general level of physiological excitation, a consequence
of intense stimuli such as an environmental stressor. Its effect on
behavior depends on the level of arousal it causes in the individual.
2) Stress, a response to a condition that is perceived as a threat to the
individual’s well-being. Stress is difficult to distinguish from arousal
and often a matter of degree. However, stress usually refers to
a stronger or more intense reaction, reserved for environmental
conditions perceived as having threatening consequences.
3) Distraction and overload. Distractions caused by the physical environment
may divert from a task. It can also lead to an overload of the individual’s
capacity. Theories of overload describe it as demands that exceed a
person’s capacities.
4) Fatigue, a response to overload or environmental stressors such as
noise, crowding etc. It leads to less comfort and ability to perform.

34
 35
When a physical stimuli, classified as an environmental stressor, is recog-

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

nized by an individual it is taken care of by a coping strategy (e.g., S. Cohen,
Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1986; Lazarus, 1966). The ‘coping response’ is
the action the individual takes to handle the stressor that is imposed on it
(S. Cohen et al., 1986). Examples of coping strategies are e.g. patterning
and personalization. (For more details see article ‘Office Experiences’ in
this thesis).
Environmental Stressors
If the response to an environmental factor is stress this is then classified
as an environmental stressor. Fundamental to all environmental stressors is
the fact that they, in a sense, lead to a certain degree of loss of control
as formerly discussed. Examples of environmental stressors in office
environments are crowding, noise, disorientation and environmental
deprivation. Here will only the most important environmental stressors
in office environments be discussed—noise and crowding. (For details
on other environmental stressors see article ‘Office Experiences’ in this
thesis).
Noise—by definition unwanted sound, thereby often both uncom-
fortable and stressful in work environments. As a source of overload
it may add to job-related stress (R. Karasek & T. Theorell, 1990),
even though it is not threatening to office employees’ health and well-
being (Vischer, 1996). It is the most important environmental factor in
office environments since it is: a) the single most common reason for
complaints in offices with open plan layouts, and b) it correlates with
office employees’ environmental dissatisfaction (Nemecek & Grandjean,
1973) and job dissatisfaction (Sundstrom et al., 1994). Yet another reason
for paying special interest to noise is its negative effects on performance.
It must here however be pointed out that some sound from colleagues
is actually good, as it may be stimulating, strengthen cohesion and make
people feel that they are not working in isolation.
The human reactions to noise are individual. Besides this the
purpose of the noise, the possibility to foresee and control it affects
the grade of annoyance. But also the attitude towards the noise source,
type of work assignment and the personal character affect the grade of
annoyance. The most disturbing noise is not always the loudest. Instead
it has been shown that colleagues’ conversations as well as telephone
ringing e.g. are more disturbing than noise from office equipment and
traffic, which is interpreted as noise that carries meaning and information
that is most disturbing (see review by Sundstrom, 1986). The distance
to the person talking may also have an effect, i.e. one survey has found
that talk from people close by was not disturbing, whereas conversation
further away than approximately 8-10 m from the own workstation was
perceived as disturbing (Christensson, 2009).
35
36
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research The acceptance and tolerance of noise is greater if the belief is
that one cannot eliminate the noise, e.g. noise caused by traffic outside
(Byström, 1999), whereas a controllable stressors such as noise from
e.g. equipment is positively influenced by perceived control. It reduces
negative outcomes, especially high levels of stress are essentially
eliminated (S. Cohen, Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1991); especially the
stress hormone adrenaline is reduced by the ability to control noise
(Frankenhauser, 1980). Experiments have shown the negative outcomes
to be more dependent on the sense of control than the exact amount of
exposed noise (Glass & Singer, 1972).
In terms of interference by noise it appears to depend on the
relative simplicity or complexity of the task as well as the noise level.
There are however contradictory results concerning performance
and noise. E.g. Sundstrom et al. (1994) could not find any correlation
between noise disturbance and performance rating. Whereas Haka
et al. (2009) in a laboratory study of an open plan office found that
interference on performance depends highly on the speech condition.
At exposure of intelligibility of irrelevant speech at levels of 0.65 STI
(Speech Transmission Index) the performance (operation span task,
serial recall, and activation of prior knowledge) deteriorate significantly.
The subjective perception of disturbance were however more sensitive,
although performance was not affected. Other laboratories studies have
showed that unpredictable noise can cause adverse aftereffect (see review
by S. Cohen, 1980). Also the frequency appears to have an impact, where
low frequency noise has a negative influence on cognitive performances
as it is hard to get used to and ignore, thus easily make people tired.
Besides this low frequency of noise increases the level of stress hormone
cortisol in the saliva among people (Bengtsson, 2003). Concering
performance it is related to the tolerance of noise whose tolerance
threshold decreases at difficult assignments and already at a level of 35
dB it is significant (Franzén, 1969). Despite this, in some circumstances
constant noise during brief work sessions is associated with improved
performance, which is explained as a positive distraction of attention
(Sundstrom, 1986). It is hypothesized that more extrovert personalities
are stimulated at noise levels which others find detrimental, e.g. in terms
of reading comprehension (Standing, Lynn, & Moxness, 1990). Results
concerning the impact age and gender have on the level of disturbance is
contradicting. Some research has shown age to have a significant impact
on how easily one is disturbed by noise (Byström, 1999). E.g. one study
did not find any disturbance by conversation noise among children in
an open space school nor any reduction in performance during higher
noise sessions (Weinstein & Weinstein, 1979). Other research indicates
that disturbance is independent not only of age, but also of gender and
education (Canter & Stringer, 1975).
36
 37
Crowding—an environmental stressor which may lead to physiological

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

arousal (e.g., Aiello, Epstein, & Karlin, 1975; Evans, 1979) and its stress
symptoms are both behavioral, (e.g. reduced ability to be social and
creative, increased intention of job turnover) and physiological (e.g. high
blood pressure)(see e.g., Oldham, 1988). Experimental laboratory studies
as well as studies on college students and prisoners have revealed negative
impacts of crowding on stress. Symptoms of prolonged stress have also
shown from living in high-density environments (see review by Evans,
2003).
The perception of crowding is closely connected to privacy as
interference in privacy is often reported when the individual perceive
problems with crowding. It is more important for employees´ job satis-
faction in open plan offices than privacy attained by partitions (Oldham,
1988). Highly related to the concept of personal control crowding is not
only a result of high density and insufficiency of space, but also a result
of more social stimulation or interaction and interference with activities
than desired (Stokols, 1972). Regarding treshold value for crowding there
are contradictory results. In an extensive review by Duval et al. (2002) no
such value was found in terms of environmental satisfaction for social
density (occupants per office), though architectural detailing appears
though to have a mediating effect on it (Wochel & Teddlie, 1976).
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN THE OFFICE
The most dominant aspect of the interior design in an office is the plan
layout—it sets the framework within which other physical factors have
to subordinate. It determines not only the borders of the space and the
placement of furnishing, but also architectural features such as design
elements and architectural detailing. Above all the plan layout sets the
conditions for the environmental factors and their architectural qualities
by determining the placement of windows and thereby the visual and
natural lighting condition of a space. It include ambient conditions i.e.
noise, temperature, air quality, lighting, as well as colors, artifacts etc. As
noise is perceived as a stressor it is in this review treated in the section
environmental stressors.
Temperature and Air Quality
Temperature and air quality are environmental factors that are technical
to their character and outside the field of architecture. They are however
strongly influenced by the architectural solution of a building as well as
workstation design. They are highly important in the design of offices since
an unsatisfactory indoor climate can cause complaints about other factors
of the environment (Franzén, 1969). Complaints on thermal comfort
are also together with noise the most common reason for complaints in
offices (Jensen, Arens, & Zagreus, 2005). It has been hypothesized if

37
38
these complaints go unheard they are easily translated to dissatisfaction
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
with management (Sundstrom, 1986). More recent research shows
though that thermal complaints are more related to the size of the shared
workspace, with which has a negative correlation, than to psychosocial
factors (Pejtersen, Allermann, Kristensen, & Poulsen, 2006).
Temperature—is associated with dissatisfaction in both offices and
factories and when frequently fluctuated it is supposedly also associated
with a decline in job satisfaction (BOSTI, 1981). A substantial fraction
of employees in offices and factories find that temperature often is
either too high or too low. Even small departures from the range of
comfort can create dissatisfaction with temperature. A large Danish
study on perception of temperature among employees in offices with
different plan layouts found it more common to complain about too
high temperature than too low temperature (Pejtersen et al., 2006).
However, due to individual differences people report wide differences
in thermal comfort in similar climatic conditions (e.g., Griffiths, 1970) .
It appears that the ideal temperature condition for the average employee
is approximately 21º (70 ºF) (see review by Sundstrom, 1986), with a
slightly warmer indoor temperature for women (Hedge, 1982). Research
concerning gender differences is however inconsistent. According to
Griffiths (1975) individual differences in comfort is not depending on
gender, age or geographical origin for that matter.
Air quality—is related to employees’ satisfaction as well as
annoyance among employees according to a review by Sundstrom (1986).
The researchers at BOSTI (1981) have found that a drop in airquality
will just as well as in temperature leads to a decline in job satisfaction
(1981). Air quality, has however seldom been shown to have an effect on
performance exceeding 3-4% over the whole range commonly occurring
in offices (Wargocki, Wyon, Baik, Clausen, & Fanger, 1999; Wargocki,
Wyon, Sundell, Clausen, & Fanger, 2000). Good air quality is defined as
moderate air movement and humidity, as well as free from pollution. The
latter is normally not a problem in office environments. Bad air quality in
office environments is normally due to not frequently enough changed
air, which thereby perceived as stuffy.Ventilation requirements depend
on factors such as population density, geographical position, season,
building materials and plan layout (e.g., Franzén, 1969; Woodson, 1981).
Several studies show higher prevalences of symptoms and complaints in
offices within mechanically ventilated buildings than those with natural
ventilation (Mendell & Smith, 1990).
Lighting, Colors and Windows
Light—significantly influences our perception of the environment and
the architectural design (Dahlin, 1999).

38
 39
Daylight has also beneficial effects regarding perceived stress

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

(Walch et al., 2005) and feelings of anxiety (Lehrner, Eckersberg, Walla,
Pötsch, & Deckee, 2000). We know e.g. that individuals chronically
exposed to shorter hours of daylight suffer more sadness, fatigue, and
some even from clinical depression (Rosenthal in Evans, 2003). It is
found that people in windowless offices feel more restricted and tense
(Ruys, 1970) and that those working next to windows during summertime
are more alert due to higher levels of stress hormones compared with
those further away. Sociability is also influenced by light through the same
stress hormone. In this context it is worthwhile to know that sociability
is partly inverted with concentration (Küller & Lindsten, 1992). Previous
outcomes are explained by the individual´s level of stress hormones and
melatonin. The latter is a sleep hormone determined by the access of
daylight that affects our alertness (Ejhed & Liljefors, 1990). Concerning
health and well-being it is beneficial to know that too much light may
cause glare, which in a work setting can lead to eyestrain and headache (J.
A. Veitch, 2001; Vischer, 1996).
The influence of the quality of light on performance is contradictive.
The research that proves natural lighting to be superior to artificial light
is scarce (Mitchell McCoy, 2002). It as well as satisfaction in windowless
rooms may thus depend more on the function of the space, its size and
duration of time present in the room than the lack of natural daylight
(Ibid.).
Colors—have a great impact on the atmosphere of a room, which
in turn is determined by the lighting conditions of the room (Dahlin,
1999). The perception of color is in architecture also closely connected
to materials, their characteristics with regard to structure, luster and
transparency, something rarely considered in the psychological research
of color conducted in laboratories (Ibid.). The darker the color is the
stronger sense of space as light colors tend to expand the space and give
a perception of openness (Dahlin, 1999; Sundstrom, 1986).
Research has shown that there is a strong preference for great
variety of bright colors in office environments (Hedge, 1982). The choice
of color at the workplace is by employees and clients often interpreted
symbolically. It can thus be classified as a symbolic artifact in accordance
with Davis’ model (1984) previously described, which is due to its
emotional and physical effect on people (Küller, 1995). Research on
commercial settings has shown that customers’ evaluation are affected
by wall colors (Babin, Hardesty, & Suter, 2003). People in general prefer
blues, reds and greens, as well as lighter colors. The hue seems to be more
important than values or saturation for preference (Guilford, 1934).
Warm colors (such as red and yellow) are believed to have arousing
physiological and psychological effects in contrast to cool colors (such

39
40
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research as blue and green) (e.g., Jacob & Suess, 1975). Green is found to evoke
positive emotions such as relaxation and comfort (Kaya & Epps, 2004).
The empirical evidence regarding health benefits of color in health care
settings is however weak (see review by Dijkstra, Pieterse, & Pruyn,
2006). The often contradicting research might depend on an individual
effect of colors. Dijksta et al. (2006) found in their research that when
they adjusted for personality, green wall color had only an effect on stress
among certain individuals with a low ability to screen off unwanted
stimuli. With regard to colors’ effect on office employees’ performance it
appears that individuals with a low ability to screen off unwanted stimuli
performed more poorly in a red office (vs. blue or green) than those with
a high ability to screen (Kawallek, Woodson, Lewis, & Sales, 1997).
Windows—admit daylight as well as a view of the exterior, thus the
placement of windows is important. The view itself appears to influence
well-being and satisfaction among employees as well.
The health aspects of view have been argued in several articles.
To mention some: Kaplan et al. (1988) found in a study that office
employees with views of only built components, had higher levels of
job stress than those with views of natural elements. The latter group
also showed higher job satisfaction. A view of nature seems to also have
health benefits, e.g. Hartig et al. (1991) found that the diastolic blood
pressure declined more rapidly among individuals who viewed trees and
vegetation than those who viewed urban settings. In addition, anger
appears to decline easier in ‘natural environments,’ whereas it increases in
urban environments (Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003). In
terms of direct health outcomes in hospital settings studies have shown
that access to a natural view has positive effects on recovery after surgery
(Ulrich, 1984), on intensive therapy (Keep, James, & Inman, 1980) and
on post-operative delirium in post surgerical patients (Wilson, 1972). In
extreme environments such as prisons, beneficial effects of views of
nature on health have been found as well. Moore (1982) has showed
that inmates with a view consisting of adjacent farmlands have lower
rates of sick call than those who overview the prison yard. However,
when research that is conducted in hospitals and prisons are compared
with office environments, one must bear in mind that the circumstances
in these settings are in many aspects very different to those in office
environments. A stay in hospital or in prison is not voluntary; the
duration of exposure is also longer. In office environments it is possible
to move around and change environment much easier than in the former
environments.
In terms of satisfaction and preference among office employees,
it is known that windows by workstations are highly appreciated and
a source for satisfaction with the physical environment (Sundstrom,

40
 41
1986). These positive effects of views overlooking nature have, besides

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

the positive effect of daylight, been attributed to the ability to register
information regarding the time of day, weather, and seasonal changes.
Sundstrom (Ibid.1986) means however that the positive attribute attached
to windows in office environments possibly is due to their value as status
symbols in office settings. Status is e.g. known to have a positive effect on
environmental satisfaction. Whatever the reasons for the positive effects
on office employees may be, the preference for views of nature is strong.
Studies have e.g. found that employees with no windows tend to decorate
their workspaces in preference for more ‘natural’ themes, in comparison
with employees with windows (Heerwagen, 1990; Heerwagen & Orians,
1986).
Artifacts and Artwork
Compared with other aspects of the interior stimuli there is limited research
on how physical objects such as artifacts and artwork influences human
psychology and behavior. Despite this, artifacts, architectural detailing
and artwork are believed to reinforce the identification to a place and in
an organizational setting reinforce the identity of an organization to its
members and their loyalty to the organization by making the workplace
unique by design and architectural features. Artifacts and artwork are,
according to Davis’ model (1984), ‘symbolic artifacts’ as they symbolically
communicate information about an organization both to its members as
well to the market outside. Health benefits as well as other benefits of
artifacts and artwork is more thoroughly described in the article ‘Office
Experience’ in this thesis.
The Workstation
For the individual, one of the most important aspects of the workplace
is the workstation (Sundstrom, 1986). Feelings towards the workplace
and the building were people work is highly influenced by the feelings
towards the immediate workplace and to what level specific environmental
attributes are available to them (Marans & Spreckelmeyer, 1982). A positive
correlation between permanence of the workspace design and pride in
the workspace among employees has also been identified (Devereaux
Ferguson, Horan, & Ferguson, 1997).
The workstation consists of many different physical objects that
when combined should support work activity. The major aspect of
the workstation is its set up with different furniture. Adjustability of
furniture and storage elements may also contribute more to privacy than
actual workspace enclosure, which is known to increase environmental
satisfaction (O´Neill, 1994). Besides the importance of ergonomics
furniture for employees´ satisfaction with their work environment, it
reduces the experience of crowding at one’s own workstation (Carlopio
& Gardner, 1992). The same study showed also that the higher job rank
41
42
the individual holds, the greater emphasis is put on ergonomic furniture
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
for environmental satisfaction (Ibid.).
As office work to a high degree means work at a fixed sitting
position bad ergonomic design of a workstation may lead to an increase
in physical and mental stress for the individual. Improper workstation
design in terms of computer equipment and poor furniture are costly
to society. E.g. in the U.S. the cost to compensate for only low back
pain work related injuries is estimated to be billions of dollars per year
(see review by Carlopio & Gardner, 1992). The same review highlights
another economic reason for ergonomic furniture such as high adjustable
desks and seating—its positive impact on productivity.
Aspects other than ergonomics such as e.g. the ability for storage
at the workstation are important for the environmental satisfaction with
it (O´Neill, 1994). In a survey by the American market research company
Louis Harris & Associates 67% of the respondents rated accessibility to
equipment and reference material as important for personal comfort (In
Marquardt, Veitch, & Charles, 2002). In this context the lesser need for
physical storage of work and reference material by the workstation for
many office employees due to the new ability for digital storage in recent
years has to be recognized.
The concept of privacy is highly related to workstation design and
important for the satisfaction with the workstation. How to design it in
order to achieve privacy at the workstation is not always obvious though,
which an American study on privacy in open plan offices shows. In the
study the employees had low preference for barriers such as partition
screens and walls to achieve privacy. Instead two field characteristics
were preferred—minimal traffic around the workstation and being
located away from the main traffic flow (Kupritz, 1998). Also other
studies have shown that although high screens admit more privacy they
are not preferred out of all choices. E.g. a Canadian study found that
employees with lower partition screens at the workstation had a higher
overall environmental satisfaction than those with high screens. This
was explained by factors such as an improved sense of space and better
ambient conditions with lower screens (e.g. better air flow and access to
overhead lightning (Charles & Veitch, 2002). The study showed also that
workstation size correlates with occupants’ satisfaction; which could be
due to the increased distance to co-workers as well as the amount of
personal workspace.
CONCEPTS THAT OPERATE AT A GROUP LEVEL
Some of the most important concepts related to the architecture of the
office operate at a group level. Examples of such concepts are interaction
and communication between individual employees as well as between

42
 43
groups and departments within an organization. When investigating the

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

impact of the architectural design for employees and organizations it is
thus important to look closer at how it operates in regard to interpersonal
relationships.
Communication
Both the architectural design and the physical location can reinforce
communication (see e.g., Conrath, 1973; Estabrook & Sommer, 1972;
Lang, Burnette, Moleski, & Vachon, 1974). Within an organization there is
however several factors that influence how people meet and interact. The
key factors are: a sense of control, the character of the work assignment,
the proximity to colleagues´ workstations and the access and proximity
of places for meetings and interaction at the office.
People communicate less when they cannot control communication
(Bencivenga, 1998), thus in organizations where the sharing of information
and innovation are vital factors for success, the architecture needs to
reinforce a sense of control. The choice of communication depends
though on the complexity of the work assignment. High-complexity
information demands face-to-face meetings, whereas telephone or e-mail
function well for less complex information (Allen, 1997). Management
relies highly on face-to-face spontaneous and unplanned meetings as well
(Kotter, 1982) and these takes place physically at what researchers calls
‘activity nodes’ or ‘nodes’. The ecological psychologist Bechtel (1976)
defines ‘activity nodes’ as a place where people’s paths cross during their
regular, daily activities. The concept is closely related to Lynch’s term
‘nodes’ used for strategic spots, from where there are intensive foci to
and from in a townscape (Lynch, 1960). Nodes are described as ‘primarily
junctions, places of a break in transportation, a crossing or convergence
of paths’ (Ibid. p. 47). Successful nodes/ activity nodes are the focal
points in a neutral territory, visually prospect (i.e. it is possible to see
what happens in a space without entering), includes activity generators
(e.g. coffee machine) and furniture arrangements that encourage social
interaction (Bechtel, 1976; Becker & Steele, 1995; Lawson, 2001).
Communication is also promoted by proximity (e.g. between
workstations and departments in an organization) as it increases the
chances for people to meet and interact. Research has shown that
distance correlates highly with the number of contacts between two
people; the further people sit from each other the less frequently they
talk (Conrath, 1973). Face-to-face communication is a vital component
for creativity, friendship and trust; thus if these three factors are vital
for an organization, visual contact and proximity to colleagues has to be
promoted by the architecture (Allen, 1997). Research has shown proximity
to also be an important factor for friendships to develop; it is perceived

43
44
as higher by employees with more colleagues nearby (Szilagyi & Holland,
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
1980). Davis (1984) implies that the sheer location in a building also will
influence how quickly a newcomer to an organization will meet and get
to know colleagues at the workplace and develop cooperative working
relationships. Also whether the direction of the physical communication
in an office is vertical or horizontal has proved to have great impact on the
degree of communication between colleagues, where horizontal leads to
significantly more interaction (Estabrook & Sommer, 1972). The choice
to locate the board and executives at the top floor of high-rise office
buildings as formerly described, thus not only has implications on status
but also on the degree of communication between top management and
the rest of the organization in a negative way.
With regards to formal meetings research has not found any
correlation between physical accessibility and amount of time spent
in formal meetings. For informal and spontaneous meetings proximity
is however of greatest importance (Sundstrom, 1986). Research has
shown that formal and scheduled meetings are overrated in comparison
to spontaneous meetings for organizational efficiency as they occur less
frequently and last longer (Kraut, Fish, Root, & Chalfonte, 1990). They
are also less efficient with regard to exchange of information and bond
building between colleagues. Considering the importance of informal
interaction and exchange of information for the welfare of organizations,
an extra effort should in accordance with these findings be put into
creating gathering places such as activity nodes/ nodes and communal
workstations. We should also be more cautious in cutting down floor
space in communal spaces in our aspiration to cut down cost, due to
its decisive impact on meetings and interactions among members in an
organization.
Groups and Teams in an Organizational Context
Groups and teams are major features of organizational life, as a major
part of the activities that take place in organizations require some degree
of cooperativeness and coordination through groups and teamwork. The
awareness of the importance of interaction and operation of groups and
teams has grown combined with an increased concentration of work
across functional divisions. Despite this the dynamics of teamwork is
still to a great degree uncertain (Mullins, 2008). Four factors are although
identified to contribute to group cohesiveness and performance in
organizations: 1) membership factors, 2) organizational factors, 3) group
development and 4) maturity of a work environment. The interest in the
architecture’s part with regard to groups and teams depend on its impact
on interaction and meetings; it can either support or inhibit interaction,
and thereby effect whether cohesiveness will develop or not between
colleagues in a group or team. In workplace design it is thus important
44
 45
to know that co-operation is more likely to develop in a smaller group as

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

problems with communication and co-ordination increases with group
size, which also supervision do. The ideal group size for a strong group
identity is hard to estimaste as it depends on several variables. Despite
this it is believed that it should not exceed ten to twelve members as
groups beyond this size easily split up into subgroups and the figure of
seven people +/-2 is referred to as an ideal size for strong group identity
(see e.g., Mullins, 2008; Svedberg, 1992). In addition to this, it is more
likely to develop if the group works on the same location and with good
visual access and proximity between its members in order to admit face-
to-face conversations and spontaneous meetings.
Whether the workspace is enclosed or open influences the cohesion
between colleagues as the ability to speak freely has a positive impact on
cohesiveness within groups. Enclosed workspaces are also positive from
a creativity perspective. MitchellMcCoy (2000) found the ability to work
without control and surveillance from management to be a key factor for
the success of highly creative teams. In line with this other researchers
have found that the opposite to enclosed workspaces—dispersed
offices—have a negative impact on team work and collaboration (Metiu
in L. Cohen, 2007). IWSP at Cornell University found that team-oriented
bullpens or shared workspaces are better on fostering comfort with team
members, informal communication and cohesiveness than partitioned
environments, especially high-walled cubicles perform poorly out of
these aspects (Becker & Sims, 2001). Becker and Sims found though an
age difference regarding the positive effect as the older employees had
more problems with concentration and disruption in open workspaces.
Cohesiveness
Cohesiveness is beneficial out of several aspects. From an occupational
health point of view it is good due to its buffering effect on stress—it
is proved that a good psychosocial environment at work makes it easier
to cope with stress. From an organizational and management point of
view it is not only beneficial for creativity and communication within
organizations, as formerly described; cohesiveness at a workplace is also
important as it leads to lower turnover and absenteeism. In addition to
this, cohesive groups are also more likely to be successful. Success has a
strong motivational influence on the level of work performance. There
is however one critical aspect to this—it may lead to a strong group
identity which facilitates the development of internal norms which may
not always go hand in hand with the organization’s norms (Sundstrom,
1986). Strong group pressure may also develop within these types of
groups. A negative aspect of group pressure is exemplified by the well
known Hawthorne experiments on its bank wiring group. The researchers
found its group pressure so strong that no member despite financial
45
46
incentive dared to produce more than what the group had decided on, an
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
output well below the level they were capable of producing. Yet another
critical aspect with strong groups is that conflicts between individuals in
work groups are often the reason behind disturbances in organizations.
To create well-functioning groups is thus vital for the welfare of an
organization (Lenéer-Axelsson & Thylefors, 1991).

2.7 Summary
The office environment has to be recognized as important at an
individual level in terms of environmental satisfaction, health status and
job satisfaction since a majority of the population works in offices in the
Western world. For a lot of these people the work environment, both
the physical and psychosocial aspect of it, plays a significant part in their
lives; in some cases it is the most important environment in daily life.
The subject of environmental influences is vast and this review does
not claim to give a full coverage of the subject. The author’s intention was
instead to show the need for an integrative approach to environmental
influences in the organizational setting between all disciplines that deals
with architecture and its implication on employees and organizations.
The review shows that architecture in an office setting serves different
purposes; there is not only an individual perspective to the office
environment but also an organizational and a societal perspective to the
matter. From an organizational perspective, architecture can be used as a
device to reinforce the organizational members´ identification and loyalty
to the organization though its influence on environmental satisfaction
and job satisfaction. It may also contribute to the organization´s success
through its impact on cohesiveness and creativity—motivational factors
important in a competitive market. At a societal level there is a lot to
be gained if we are able to design office environments that support
individuals and organizations. Poor working environments cause con-
siderable suffering and illness as well as have high costs for society at
large (European Commission, 2002a; Milczarek et al., 2009). Every
means we can find to reduce the number of sick-leaves and promote
health is important, thus the impact of the office environment needs to
be incorporated.
Review of architectural approaches to office environments reveal
that different trends in office design have developed as new needs and
technological opportunities have emerged. This combined with the
current view on work environments, the political views in society and
status of office work has had a great influence on the architects´ ambition
with office design. The latter factor is easily read through history in the
architectural design of office buildings and office environment’s interior
(Bedoire, 1979). Traditionally office design has been used as a status

46
 47
marker and the goal has often been to achieve a private, large corner

A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research

office with a nice view (Duffy, 1999). The emergence of new digital
technologies and a shift towards more flexible office work might however
lead to a change in the mind set of what status is in terms of the office.
The connection between architectural design of offices and the
scientific knowledge of its environmental influence on employees and
organizations has never been very strong. Instead the influences have come
from different trends in society, digital technologies and contemporary
management theories; in the latter case, often with a shallow approach.
Spatial implication of office design has almost been completely ignored
in office research and the research has instead adopted views and
methodologies from other fields that deal with work environmental
issues without much connection to the core of architecture — space and
its impact on humans.
The lack of connection between practice and research in architecture
is a problem as a scientific based design process is an important means to
developing the field. In my opinion, the creation of a multi-disciplinary
field of office design is vital as the environmental influence in an office
setting by nature is multi-disciplinary. As individuals we are part of
context—a context that consists of several factors that interact not only
with us but also with each other. In an office it means that environmental
influences operate on several levels—it operates simultaneously at an
individual, a group and an organizational level. In a multi-disciplinary
field of office design where the disciplines approach each other, the
field as a whole will expand and new perspectives and theories of how
office design influences individuals and organizations can develop. In the
end new knowledge will emerge, also with benefits for each individual
discipline. So would e.g. the organizational and management field by
approaching the field of environmental psychology probably gain a better
insight about how the individual environmental factors exercise influence
at both an individual and group level. In another way, environmental
psychology would, by approaching organizational-oriented research,
earn better insight about the impact of the organizational factors on the
employee, i.e. their influence on his/ hers perception of the own office
and how this in turn influences the image of the own organization. If
the organizational-oriented research approaches the field of occupational
health it would probably gain a better insight onto how health aspects
of the environment has impact on organizational aspects such as job
satisfaction and motivational factors, all vital for organizations. The field
of occupational health and stress medicine may in turn learn a lot by
approaching the organizational aspects of the office environments as
these set the agenda that determines the conditions for organizations
and their employees. Finally, one can ask oneself what architecture as

47
48
a field would gain by approaching the fields of research that investigates
A Multi-disciplinary Field of Research
the impact of the environment that they design. The obvious answer is
that the field of architecture would gain important knowledge about what
architectural design does to individuals and organizations; knowledge that
can improve architectural design in order to fulfill the need of its users
better. Formerly described gains are gains for each individual field, but in
my opinion that is not were most benefits would be gained. Instead it will
be found at an overall level as synergy effects will come out of a holistic,
multi-disciplinary approach to environmental influences on employees
and organizations. We will see and understand things we would otherwise
never do due to the different perspectives to the subject of environment,
in other words the whole field of science will expand.
There is another aspect to research concerning environmental
influences and that is the question of how we get the scientific knowledge
out into the practice. The profession of architecture is a practical and
not very theoretical profession as a majority of architects works as
practicing architects. The focus in the profession is on ‘making’ (Dunin-
Woyseth & Michl, 2001), it deals with finding functional and aesthetical,
as well as, economical solutions to problems in our physical world. The
environmental impact of the created architecture is often forgotten or
neglected by architects and other parties in the design process. One reason
is that the accumulating knowledge is spread over a large scientific field
with different approaches and thus both hard to find and understand for
architects. Another reason is that for a practicing architect this knowledge
is often very abstract and hard to transfer to the design process directly.
Guidelines combined with reference objects of good examples and cases
would be good methods to assimilate knowledge into the design process,
however not enough as research has to be put into practice by a more
systematic approach. The architectural design needs to fulfill the following
categories of demand on the physical office environment:
- Individual demands,
- Organizational demands on the building and,
- Technological demands on the building.
At times these demands stand in direct opposition to each other, but the
creative design process can find a balance between them. It is my firm belief
that a design process based on scientific knowledge is the best tool to meet
these needs and to achieve a supportive work environments; supportive at
both an individual and the organizational level. Although the architectural
design process often is intuitive and built on knowledge based on personal
experiences and professional practice, in my opinion, it is no contradiction
to have a scientific foundation. The challenge therefore in the future is to
create a joint venture between research and architecture in order to design
supportive environments with high architectural quality.
48
3
Research Project

3.1 Basis and Approaches Applied

This research is primarily grounded in the field of architecture, but due
to the complexity of the research issue depending on the nature of its
research questions it embraces the described multi-disciplinary field. In
focus is the possible connection between the office type and its influence
on: 1) satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the office environment among
employees; and 2) the health and well-being, and job satisfaction among
the employees. The architecture of the office is also investigated from
different aspects with the focus on: 3) architectural quality and a) its
importance in relation to office type for employees’ perception of their
own offices; and b) how to capture the employees’ perspective on it; and
finally 4) what importance the two key components of architecture—the
aesthetical and functional dimensions—have for the office employees
and how they influence their perception.
Since the focus is on office type’s impact on the individual,
important aspects within the multi-disciplinary field have to be considered
in the analysis of the research project’s empirical data. This includes the
influence of organizational culture and individual environmental factors
on the individual’s perception and evaluation of an environment in a
broad span, and psychological responses to these. But also the influence
of the psychosocial work environment and general life circumstances.
These factors that may all highly influence the employees’ perception
and satisfaction with the office environment, as well as their health, well-
being and job satisfaction; thus have to be considered in an analysis of
the office type’s influence on employees.
The main research question of this project is to ascertain whether
office type is a determinant—i.e. an explanatory factor—for self-rated
health, well-being and job satisfaction. An implication of this research
objective is the necessity to examine the office types’ potential influence

49
50
on employees’ satisfaction with their physical office environment and
Research Project
individual environmental factors due to their possible impact on the main
research question. Previous research has shown that if psychological
needs are fulfilled at the workplace, it has a positive impact on health
status and job satisfaction (Beehr, 1995; Lu, 1999; Siegrist, 1996). If no
covariance is detected between satisfaction/dissatisfaction and the office
environment, self-rated health and well-being, and job satisfaction, it is
equally interesting.
The research project was conducted in a three-step analysis of the
empirical data: 1) The first step investigates the perception and experience
of the office environment using a qualitative method, as presented in
Articles I and V; 2) The second step investigates the employees’ attitude
and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with different aspects of the office
environment relating to quantitative method, as presented in Articles II
and III; and 3) The last step investigates the employees’ self-rated health,
well-being and job satisfaction in relation to which office type they work
in, and is presented in Article IV.
In order to conduct this research project, who aims to investigate
office types’ possible influence on employees, the statistical analysis of
the quantitative data was conducted in two steps. A first comparison
between employees in different office types was carried out with the
intention of investigating possible differences with regard to: satisfaction
with office environment, health and well-being, and job satisfaction. This
first step of the analysis was done without any consideration of other
factors that could provide an alternative explanation for differences
between employees in different office types, i.e. confounders of the main
hypothesis concerning office type. The first step in statistical analysis was
executed using a simple, logistic regression model (see figure 1).
Step 1 in analysis:
Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction with
INFLUENCES?
the Office Environment

Offi
Office
Health and Well-being
type

J b Satisfaction
Job S ti f ti

Figure 1. Step 1 of the statistical analysis in a logistic regression model, without

consideration of the influences of confounders.

50
 51

Research Project
To be able to determine whether an established variance between
employees in different office types could depend not on the office type
but on other potentially explanatory factors, an additional analysis was
necessary to conduct. This multivariate analysis was performed using
an extended logistic regression model. In the analysis of satisfaction/
dissatisfaction with the office environment among employees (figure 2),
as well as health status and job satisfaction among employees (figure 3),
the following background factors, i.e. confounders, were considered: age,
gender, job rank and line of business.
If differences remained after step 2 of the analysis, the hypothesis
that office type has an influence on the employees has been reinforced.
Step 2 in analyses: DIRECT
INFLUENCES?
Office Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction
type with the Office Environment

Confounders:

AGE
GENDER
JOB RANK
LINE OF BUSINESS

Figure 2. Step 2 in the statistical analysis of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the office

environment among employees in different office types. Multivariate analyses were
utilized with a logistic regression model, as well as a Poisson regression model.

DIRECT
INFLUENCES?
Office Health and Well-being
type Job Satisfaction

Confounders:

AGE
GENDER
JOB RANK
LINE OF BUSINESS

Figure 3. Step 2 was also performed in the statistical analysis of health and well-
being, and job satisfaction, among employees in different office types. Also here
multivariate analysis was utilized in a logistic regression model and a Poisson
regression model.
51
52
One could, of course, use a different approach when analyzing the impact
Research Project
of the office type on employees. E.g. models with different factors as
mediators which are included in the chain of causal relations could
be discussed. An analysis of this kind could have been done without
neglecting the effect of other important factors, such as age, gender,
job rank etc. Such an analysis would be easier to perform using linear
regression instead of logistic regression or a Poisson regression model—
it could have been considered. Despite the importance of psychological
impact on satisfaction and general health status, as well as job satisfaction,
the aim of this doctoral thesis has not been to investigate the importance
of psychosocial factors for employees regarding satisfaction with office
environment or health and well-being, or job satisfaction for that matter.
The main goal has not been to add knowledge to the field of psychology
but rather to add knowledge to the field of architecture and its design
process. It is well known that psychosocial factors have a great influence
on psychological and physiological health (e.g., Hjemdahl, 2003; Karasek
& Theorell, 1990; Lundberg & Melin, 2002). The psychosocial aspects
are, however, delicate due to their cultural nature and have to be analyzed
in a cultural context. For these reasons this doctoral work choses only to
look at the possible relationship between office type and the outcome of
the employees’ satisfaction with their office environment and their health
status, as well as job satisfaction. The psychosocial work environment
is included as an item in the index of the outcome of job satisfaction,
instead of analyzing it separately as a mediating factor.
The overall goal of this research project has been to add knowledge
to the architectural field and illuminate the impact of office environment
on employees out of different aspects. This is a delicate matter since
the research project is in a multi-disciplinary field where several fields
of science meet, with their various perspectives and approaches. I have
therefore chosen to include environmental psychology and the other
fields that deal with environmental influences as tools in my doctoral
thesis. I am aware of the problem with working in a multi-disciplinary
field, yet I choose not to see it as an obstacle but rather a challenge
to apply different scientific approaches to my doctoral work. Being an
architect, I recognize that architecture and the physical environment are
significant components of the psychological and physical well-being of
people. I am, however, well aware of other aspects that may have an even
greater impact on individual health and well-being, such as psychosocial
factors in the workplace, and general life circumstances. I hope in my
further research to be able to go deeper into this matter and to examine
the mediating effect of important background factors for employees’
health and well-being in an environmental context.

52
 53
3.2 Research Objectives

Research Project
The purpose of the present doctoral thesis is to study the office
environment’s influence on the employees’ perception of their workplace,
their organization and their job satisfaction, as well as on their health and
well-being. In the analyses the office environments have been classified
into different office types and defined by their architectural and functional
features which are described later in section Methods and Materials.
With the objective being to investigate the office environment’s
influence on employees and the organization, the main questions at issue
are:
• Are there any differences between employees in different office types with respect to
health status, job satisfaction or satisfaction with the workplace?
• If so, can these differences be traced to the office type itself?
• What role does the architectural quality of the office play in relation to this?
In addition to these general research objectives, specific questions will be
addressed in the separate sub-studies and articles.
The initial qualitative study presented in Article I is based on
semi-structured interviews. It investigates the employees’ perceptions of
different office environments. The perceptions are examined through the
interviews and ‘mental maps’ the respondents’ drew of their offices. The
relation between the perception of the environment and its architectural
quality is investigated as well as the architecture’s influence on social
behavior and on the cooperation between employees. The article discusses
the possible benefits of a user perspective in the design process based on
their perceptions and experiences. The questions at issue are:
• Is Lynch´s method, which was developed for urban environments, useful as a tool
to evaluate interior environments such as offices?
• What is important for the employee’s positive experience of an office environment?
• What role does the architectural quality play in the employees’ perception of the
office in relation to office type?
• What determines the employees’ experience of architectural quality in the office?
Both Articles II and IV are based on a quantitative study of 491 office
employees who filled out a questionnaire that covered such issues as health,
well-being, organization, leadership, psychosocial work environment
and motivation, as well as physical, environmental factors and office
architecture. Important, confounding factors such as age, gender, job
rank, and line of business are considered in the statistical analyses.
In Article II, employees’ satisfaction with the office environment
and various environmental factors are analyzed. Also, psychological
aspects closely connected to environmental factors are analyzed in
relation to office types as well as the employees’ satisfaction with design

53
54
features in different office types. The questions at issue are:
Reesearch Project
• Does office type have an impact on employees’ satisfaction with the office
environment?
• Which aspects of the physical environment cause most complaints?
• Which design features do employees express most satisfaction/dissatisfaction with?
Article III analyzes the employees’ office experiences, in doing so it applies
to two approaches to the matter: a) it frames the physical work environment’s
influence on office employees into a model developed by organizational
theorist Davis (1994); and b) it categorizes the office experiences into two
groups based on their nature and problems related to this. To exemplify
the two approaches to office experiences the article uses the results of the
study presented in Article II in the analysis. The questions at issue in article
are:
• How do we combine the theoretical and scientific perspectives with the practioner’s
(i.e. architect, designer etc) perspective in the analysis of office environment?
• Is it useful to categorize and analyze office experiences based on their nature and
any problems related to them?
• If so, is a categorization of office experiences helpful in the design process of office
environments?
In Article IV the impact of the office design and the office type on the
office employees’ health, well-being and job satisfaction are studied. The
questions at issue are:
• Is there any difference between health and well-being among employees in
different office types?
• Is there any difference with regard to job satisfaction in different office types?
• If so, is it in the same office types where the employees rate their health and
well-being as good that they also have the best results with regard to job satisfaction?
The final study presented in Article V is a qualitative study and explorative
to its character. The study is based on semi-structured, in-depth interviews
of nineteen office employees from eighteen different companies/divisions.
The article investigates the two key dimensions of architecture—the
aesthetical and the functional—and their importance for the employees’
perception of the workplace and organization as a whole. The questions
at issue are:
• What is important for the employees’ perception of the office environment?
• Which dimension is most important for the individual employee, and for the
workplace as a whole?
• Does it deviate between employees in different categories of offices?
• What importance does architectural quality play with regard to the former
questions?

54
 55
3.3 Methods and Material

Research Project
STUDY DESIGN AND ANALYTIC MODELS
With the aim being to investigate the office environmental influence on
employees, both a qualitative and quantitative approach was considered
necessary in this empirically based research project. Using an architectural
perspective—the foundation of this doctoral thesis—it was important to
comprehend different aspects of individual employee’s perceptions and
experiences of their office environments, only accessible using a qualitative
method. To get a broader picture and to understand the quantitative data
it was thus important to consider it in relation to qualitative data, which
allows employees to formulate their perceptions and experiences of their
office environments in their own words. The qualitative data was used as
a guideline in the analysis of the quantitative data; the two approaches
used in the research project were thus complementary. Qualitative and
quantitative data were collected separately, although from the same
sample of office employees.
Articles I and V, investigates employees’ perceptions and experiences
of the physical office environments as well as the office environment’s
possible relation to cooperation and social atmosphere at the workplace.
Both articles use a qualitative approach which allows for the possibility
of capturing different nuances that would have been difficult to discern
otherwise. The method used was the semi-structured interview.
Article I is focused on two aspects – a) the employees’ experiences
of architectural quality in the office from a user perspective, measured by
the concepts ‘imageability’ developed by Lynch (1960); and b) the usability
of Lynch´s method in interior environments. Article V also investigates
the employees’ experiences of the office architecture though it focuses on
what importance the two key components of architecture, the aesthetical
and functional dimensions have for employees’ perceptions of their own
workplace and organization. The data was coded and categorized in
order to see what and how employees described their offices in relation
to which office category they worked in in this study, instead of office
type due to the size of the sample (for definitions see later section Office
Definitions). The analysis of architectural quality in terms of aesthetical
and functional dimensions of architecture was based on Werner’s work
(2000) of users’ descriptions of architectural quality in dwellings. An
interview guide for the semi-structured interviews was designed and used
in both articles. It is presented in appendix 2.
Both Articles II and IV apply a quantitative approach to their
research questions. In Article II the employees’ satisfaction with the
physical office environment and individual environmental factors is
investigated in relation to office type. Psychological aspects connected

55
 56
Research Project to the physical environment are also investigated. In Article IV the
employees’ self-rated health, well-being and job satisfaction are studied
in relation to office type, in order to detect possible differences between
employees in different office types. In both cases the statistical processing
of questionnaire data and the estimation of the data were carried out
with a logistic regression model and a Possion regression model using
univariate and multivariate analyses. Adjustment for the following
confounding variables was done in both Articles II and IV: age, gender,
job rank and line of business. These confounding variables are all known
to influence the perception, psychology and behavior of people. Well-
established and validated questionnaires were used to collect data in the
quantitative study (Lindström et al., 1997; Söderberg, 1993; Vischer,
1996). The questionnaires are presented in appendix 3.
Article III will not be discussed in terms of methods and materials
since it is a review article. The empirical data used to exemplify the review
comes from the study in Article II; thus for statistical analysis of the data
see Article II.
Results from the regressions are reported with the overall statistical
significance of office type as an explanatory factor for the outcomes,
and the p-value of the hypothesis of no effect of office type has been
given. P-values less than 0.05 have been interpreted as evidence of an
effect of office type on health and other outcome variables. The Odds
Ratio (OR) and Relative Risk (RR) for the office types, with cell-office
as a reference category given the value 1.0, are also reported. ORs and
RRs close to 1.0 are interpreted as no, or only a small, difference in the
proportion of inferior outcomes from that of the cell-office category.
ORs and RRs higher than 1.0 are interpreted as a higher proportion of
inferior outcomes, and ORs and RRs less than 1.0 as a lower proportion.
The OR can also be interpreted as a rough estimate of the relative risk
of an inferior outcome, in particular when the outcome is comparatively
rare. The structure used to specify the logistic regression models is given
in Hosmer & Lemeshaw (2000). The statistical software used are SPSS
(Version 13, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA), Statistix (Version 8, Analytical
Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA) and STATA (Version 9, StataCorp,
College Station, TX, USA).
PROCEDURE
A convenience sampling method was used, which in this case means
that prior to data collection the author inspected several offices in order
to examine whether they fitted one of the seven office definitions used
in the study. Then the managements of the offices were asked if they
wanted to participate in the study, which a majority of them chose to do.
The participating companies then appointed a contact person, usually
a middle manager at the specific office division of interest or someone
56
 57
from the human resources department. The individual respondents were

Research Project
asked, either by the company management or the contact person, whether
they wanted to participate. Participation was voluntary and information
about the purpose of the study was given to each respondent either by
e-mail or in a personal presentation given by the author, depending on
the particular company’s request.
For the qualitative study presented in Articles I and V, an ‘intensive
purposing sampling method’ (Patton, 2002, p. 234) was used which in
this case means that out of the sample of 491 office employees from
the participating twenty-six companies/divisions in larger companies,
nineteen people were selected for semi-structured interviews.
Article I and Article V
The semi-structured, in-depth interviews took place in the late spring
and summer of 2004 in Stockholm, Sweden. The respondents were
interviewed individually at a quiet and comfortable location of choice. All
interviews where held at the respondent’s workplace, with the exception
of one that was held at the Royal Institute of Technology, the workplace
of the author. The duration of the interviews varied between 1.5-2 hours.
The author conducted and recorded all interviews with a tape recorder.
Respondents were also asked to draw a ‘mental map’ from their memory
of their offices (Lynch, 1960). After they had drawn the mental map the
respondents were asked to mark their workstation on a blue print of their
office. In those cases where the respondent worked in a flex-office, the
respondent was asked to mark the workstations they normally chose to
work at. Article I is based on three of the in-depth interviews combined
with their mental map exercises, whereas Article V is base on all nineteen
in-depth interviews in the sample excluding the mental map exercise.
Article II and Article IV
The contact person at office distributed the questionnaires personally to
the respondents or to their post-boxes at the office. They were returned
by mail to the author or picked up by the author in sealed, anonymous
envelopes at the workplace in accordance with the previous agreement.
The respondents had approximately two weeks to fill out the questionnaire;
in some cases it was delayed due to respondents not having enough time.
The respondents filled out the questionnaires at a location of choice. The
only instructions they were given was to fill it out alone at a quiet place.
They were also told not to consider the answers for too long and always
stick with the first spontaneous answer that came into their minds.
STUDY GROUP
Article I and Article V
Out of the sample of nineteen respondents (men n=9, women n=10),
three interviews were used in Article I. For Article V all nineteen
57
 58
Research Project interviews were used. Respondents from each office type were selected,
which were divided into different office categories. In the sample of each
office category it was then strived for as a high degree as possible of
different companies and line of businesses. The nineteen respondents
were selected with regard to age, gender and job rank in order to achieve
as great a variation as possible. However, it was difficult to attain an
equal number of respondents in each office type, which probably is due
to that respondents perceived the duration of the interviews was long
and had difficulty to allot time for it. Participation was voluntary and the
respondents were told that the in-depth interviews would focus on their
perception of the architecture at their workplaces.
In Article I only three of the interviews were used. The selection
of respondents was done in accordance with the aim to analyze office
environments that differed with regard to size and office design. An
interesting alternative would have been to select respondents in the
same office environment in order to analyze individual differences in
perception between respondents in the same office environment. However
interesting it would be to investigate difference in the perception of the
exact same environment it was not the aim of this analysis. In Article V
no selection was made, as all nineteen interviews were used.
An overview of the distribution of background factors collected
within the qualitative study group is presented in Sociodemographic
table 1 of appendix 1.

Article II and Article IV

The sample comprised 491 office employees (men n=247, women
n=236, no information on gender n=8) from twenty-six different
companies/divisions in larger companies in the Stockholm area, Sweden.
The respondents that did not specify their gender were only used in
the univariate analysis where no adjustment for confounding variables
was made. Each office that took part in the research project represents
one of the seven office types that were used in the study (see section
Office definitions). The distribution of different office types within the
sample of twenty-six different companies/divisions in larger companies
is presented in table 2 of appendix 1. The mean age of the respondents
was 41 years old (21-64 years old). The response rate was relatively high
considering the size of the sample: 72.5% (men 68%, women 74%).
This is probably due to the fact that the author had personal contact by
e-mail with all employees who had been administered the questionnaire,
both before and during the response period. This may have lead to
more loyalty towards the author and the research project, and thereby a
higher propensity to answer the questionnaire. The offices with highest
response rate, with rates at 100%, were all offices where the author had

58
 59
given a personal presentation of the research project. This probably led

Research Project
to this extremely high compliance. On the other hand, the offices with
the lowest response rates had less involvement with contacted persons or
had not had any personal presentation at the office. The offices with the
lowest response rates tended to be in the more stressful line of business,
such as sales organizations and consultants businesses with a lot of work
outside the office premises. The distribution of office types within the
twenty-six companies/divisions is presented in table 2 of appendix 1.

SOCIODEMOGRAPHICS
An overall, general review of background data with respect to age,
gender, job rank and line of business shows that the sample of 491 office
employees has a uniform distribution with regard to age and gender. With
regard to job rank the largest proportion of employees hold middle-low
job ranks (50 % of the respondents). The largest lines of business in
the sample are the media and IT sectors. An overview of background
data of the whole sample and its distribution of different office types is
presented in Sociodemographic table 3 of appendix 1.
OFFICE DEFINITIONS
In order to enable a comparison between different office environments, it
was necessary to categorize them. Traditionally there are two main methods
of categorizing office environments: either by spatial organization or by
work organization. There are limitations in using only one method since
there is a strong correlation between the two.
I have used the definitions from Ahlin and Westlander (1991)
and Duffy (1999) as the basis for my own definitions of office types.
Ahlin and Westlander (Ibid.) use the physical feature, i.e. the plan layout,
to define different offices. They define the plan layout at two levels:
a) one main level called plan model that is defined by the principle of
spatial organization in an office; and b) one detailed level called room
type. According to the authors the following plan models exist: 1) cell-
office; 2) combi-office; and 3) open plan office. Room type, which
enables analysis at a more detailed level, is used to analyze individual
office rooms, but not whole office plan layouts like plan model. The
room type is found in three categories: single rooms, shared-rooms (2-3
people/room), and large rooms (more than 4 people/room). There is a
connection between room type and plan model in relation to individual
room solutions. Duffy (Ibid.) uses another approach: he defines different
office categories. He combines the physical features with functional
features in his definitions, though there is a focus on function. Duffy has
defined four categories of office types, each with a unique pattern of
work and spatial requirements. He uses non-traditional names which are

59
 60
Research Project more descriptive of the different types that he has recognized in office
design. According to Duffy, the four different types of office are: 1) cell,
the equivalent of cell-office; 2) club, the equivalent of combi-office; 3)
hive, the equivalent of open plan office; and 4) den, the equivalent of
flex-office. In my opinion both definition methods have their limitations.
The problem with the definitions proposed by Ahlin and Westlander is
that they are too flexible. Using their definition method one ends up with
as many definitions as number of offices that are being analyzed, since
there is almost an endless combination of different plan models and
room types.
The definitions by Duffy are less broad and include both the
spatial organization and the function of office work, with an emphasis
on the latter. I find that Duffy’s combination between the two is
necessary, since the two are always so closely connected. The weakness
of Duffy’s definition, though, is that it is too focused on the actual work
and technology of the office work. He talks vaguely about the spatial
organization and its influence on the actual work, i.e. the architectural
interpretation of the office work. Another weakness is that he leaves out
a very common office definition—the shared-room office. When Duffy
describes the different categories as he has identified them, there seems
not to exist any mixed versions of definitions. He is quite rigid in his
definitions, with the work taking place in the different office categories.
For example, when he describes the flex-office it seems as if it is the only
category used by architecture firms, which is naturally not the case.
In my categorization of different office environments seven
different office types is identified, based on the work of Ahlin &
Westlander (1991) and Duffy (1999). These are: cell-office, shared-room
office, open plan office (including small, medium-sized and large open
plan office), flex-office and combi-office (Ahlin & Westlander, 1991;
Duffy, 1999). The open plan office has a great variety, with different sub-
divisions which range from 4 people/ room to more than 100 people
in a shared, communal space. To my knowledge no internal distinction
between different types of open plan solutions has been made in the
research of open plan offices. The medium-sized open plan office is,
however, an established definition of an office type in Sweden, called
‘storrum’ (large room office), where it is the most common open plan
office type (Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). In this research project the
three following definitions of open plan offices are based on the amount
of people sharing the same workspace: small open plan office with 4-9
people/room, medium-sized open plan office with 10-24 people/room
and large open plan office with > 24 people/room. The smaller and
larger open plan offices do not have established definitions for open
plan offices. However, they were use in this research project since there

60
 61
exist group psychology theories which means that the group identity is

Research Project
dependent on the size of the group; groups of 7 people (± 2 people) are
preferable so as to enhance group identities (Mullins, 2008; Svedberg,
1992).
The office types are defined by architectural features and functional
features, since there are limitations in using only one category of feature
to define offices due to the symbiotic relation between the two features.
Among the architectural features the spatial organization is the most
dominant and, as such, critical for many functional features, in particular
the execution of work and administration of it. It must to be said that
the office types should be construed as prototypes. Each office that took
part in the study represents one of the seven office types that have been
identified in office design (Ahlin & Westlander, 1991; Duffy, 1999):
1. The cell-office is a single person room office. Corridors, where every
room has access to a window, characterize the plan layout. Most
equipment is in the room. The office work is often highly concent-
rated and independent.
2. The shared-room office is defined by 2-3 people sharing a room.The
shared-rooms are either the result of a team-based work organiza-
tion that emphasizes interaction within projects, or the consequence
of a lack of space. In the latter case the people tend to have similar
work assignments. Most office equipment is outside the room,
though the team-based shared-rooms sometimes have their own
equipment within the room.
Open plan offices. The open plan office exists in different varieties, depending
on the amount of people sharing workspace. In this study the following
three definitions of open plan office are used:
3. Small open plan office, with 4-9 people/ room. Considered a good size
for teams (Svedberg, 1992).
4. Medium-sized open plan office, with 10-24 people/ room. The most
common size of open plan office in Sweden (Christiansson &
Eiserman, 1998).
5. Large open plan office, with more than 24 people/ room. Not very
common in Sweden (Ibid.).
Open plan office is defined by employees sharing a communal workspace.
There are neither walls between workstations nor access to individual
windows. The work is often routine-based with low levels of interaction
between employees. The purpose of these office types is to be flexible with
 Definition by Ahlin and Westlander (1991) for a room shared by more than one person. The
original definition in Swedish is ‘delat flerpersonrum’ (room shared by several people).
 Christiansson & Eisermann (1998) conclude that a medium-sized open plan office with
10–24 people/room is the most common size of open plan offices in Sweden. It is called
‘storrum’ (large room office).

61
 62
organizational changes which are managed without any reconstruction.
Research Project
For reduction of noise and some privacy there are often screens between
workstations.
6. The flex-office is defined by employees not having any personal work-
station. It is often in an open plan layout, but not necessarily. It is
the most flexible office type, since not only is the office plan flexible
but also the employees. A good IT system is necessary since the choice
of workstation is unrestricted and all work is dependent on access to
the shared computer system. The flex-offices are dimensioned for
< 70% of the workforce to be in the office, as these dimensions
are based on the assumption that much of the work is carried out
outside of the office or that the employees are absent due to illness
etc.
7. The combi-office is nowadays an office type with no strict spatial defi-
nition. Instead it is the teamwork and sharing of communal facililities
that defines it. There is good access to back-up spaces for teamwork,
concentrated work meetings etc. Over 25% of the work of emp-
loyees’ takes place within the office at places other than one’s own
workstation on an ‘as needed’ basis. The work is in its nature both
independent and interactive, and it thrives on teamwork.
The seven office types are in Article V categorized into three groups in
the analysis of the data due to the small sample size of the study. The
three groups are:
1) Individual and smaller shared workspace—office types with smaller work-
space for one individual or a few individuals (including cell-office and
shared-room office).
2) Traditional open plan office—office types with shared workspace of dif-
ferent sizes (including small open plan office, medium-sized open plan
of-fice and large open plan office).
3) More flexible open plan offices—open plan offices with flexible ways to
work and a plan layout and IT-system that support the more flexible
work methods (including flex- and combi-office).
MEASUREMENTS
Qualitative Measurements
For the qualitative studies presented in Articles I and V, a semi-struc-
tured interview guide was created with the aim to investigate the employees’
perceptions and experiences of the physical office environment, and

 The combi-office was first introduced as an idea in Sweden in 1977 by Svante Sjöman
(Christiansson & Eiserman, 1998). The traditional combi-office was a combination of cell-
office and open plan office where every person had an individual room with windows facing
the communal space. Most of the office facilities were outside the individual room in the
communal multi-space.

62
 63
their possible relation to cooperation and social atmosphere in the office.

Research Project
The guide which followed a model given by Lynch (1960) was divided
into two major sections. Its first section covered background aspects
including personal and professional background, health status and work
situation. It also defines the office type of the respondent. The second
section briefly covered issues related to health status and work situation,
based on selected questions from the QSP Nordic/AH questionnaire
(Lindström et al., 1997).
The major part of the interview guide covered the perception of
the architecture at the office. Its first component was based on questions
from a doctoral thesis by Nylander (1998) called ‘Bostaden som arkitektur’
(The dwelling as architecture). The second component was based on
questions used in the work by Lynch (1960) developed to measure the
inhabitants’ perception of their city inhabitants. The questions were
transformed to suit an interior office environment for the purpose of
the two studies. An important part of Lynch’s method was to let the
respondents draw mental maps of their environment based on memory
recall. This method was also incorporated into interviews and used in
the study presented in Article I. The last component of the interview
guide covered questions related to the social interplay between employees
at the respondent’s workplace, and the possible relation between the
architecture and the social atmosphere at the office. It was based on a
questionnaire developed by Söderberg (1993). Only selected questions of
her work were used that suited the object of the research project.
The application of an open-ended interview aimed at capturing
the specific points of each respondent without predetermining the issues
of the interviews. The focus in the interviews was on the individual’s
perception of the architecture of own office, its possible influence
upon the employee’s view of the workplace, the atmosphere among the
colleagues and the perception of the organization as a whole.
The interview guide is presented in Swedish in appendix 2.
Quantitative Measurements
The questionnaire used was a combination of three different ques-
tionnaires that together covered the fields of: 1) health and well-being; 2)
satisfaction with the psychosocial work environment and the work itself;
and 3) physical environment and architectural design. For each field well-
known and validated questionnaires were used (Lindström et al., 1997;
Söderberg, 1993; Vischer, 1996). The first part of the questionnaire covered
the respondent’s individual background, including age, gender, level of
education, line of business, job rank, years in current profession, years
in current employment etc. To collect data on the respondent’s self-rated
health status and work situation, the QPSNordic questionnaire (General

63
 64
Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work) was
Research Project
used with the addition of the AH (Arbete och hälsa) questionnaire (Eng.
Work and health questionnaire), the latter developed by the Section of
Personal Injury Prevention, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The physical
environment and architectural design incorporated two questionnaires: the
BIU (Building-In-Use) Assessment (Vischer, 1996) and a questionnaire
developed by Söderberg (1993) called ‘Grupporganisation och inre miljö
i samspel’ (the interplay between group organization and interior design).
The BIU, which was developed in Canada, was translated into Swedish
by the author. In both cases the number of questions were shortened
compared to the originals.
In total, the questionnaire covered 141 items of which some
included sub-questions. The scales varied from two-scaled items to six-
scaled. Out of all of the questions 19 covered the general background
of the respondents, 84 covered the health and work environment, while
38 questions with sub-questions covered architecture and the physical
environment.
The questionnaires are presented in Swedish in appendix 3.
In Article II the following outcomes were compared in the statistical
analysis with respect to office type. Perception of the physical environment
was measured by the following factors (with different outcome variables
from the BIU Assessment (Vischer, 1996):
1) Ambient Factors measured using the following three factors:
Temperature, Ventilation, and Lighting Condition, each factor having
one outcome variable.
2) Noise and Privacy measured using the following two factors:
Noise, measured by three outcome variables, and Privacy, measured
by three outcome variables.
3) Design-related factors measured using the following three factors:
Workstation Design, measured by four outcome variables, Workspace
Design, measured by three outcome variables, and Office Design,
measured by four outcome variables.
The social atmosphere of the office and its correspondence with the architecture of
the workplace were measured by the following, selected, outcome variables
from the questionnaire developed by Söderberg (1993):
4) The cohesion, competition and territories within the work group, between
the work groups and the office as a whole. The interplay between
these aspects of the social interaction and architectural design of the
workspace was measured as well.
5) The personalization and privacy issues at the workstation and workplace
as a whole.

64
 65
6) The quality of the workstation and workspace in general, with regard to

Research Project
quality of lunch and break areas, as well as ergonomic aspects of the
workstation.
For details on factors and internal outcome variables, as well as the
dichotomization of variables, see Article II.
In Article IV the following outcomes were analyzed:
A. The general health and well-being of the respondents were measured by the
following selected domains from the QPSNordic/AH questionnaire:
1) Health and well-being, measured with the three outcome variables: ‘sick
leave’, in two different formulations, ‘general health’, and ‘physical and
psychological health.’
2) Emotional health, measured by five outcome variables: ‘efficiency’,
‘accuracy’, ‘calm and harmony’, ‘energy’, and ‘sad and depressed’. The
quality of sleep was measured by one outcome variable, ‘general quality
of sleep’.
B. Job satisfaction is in this thesis defined as satisfaction with the psychosocial
work environment and the attitude towards work itself. It was measured
by:
1) Psychosocial work environment, measured by three outcome variables: ‘work
demands’, ‘leadership’ and ‘cooperation’.
2) The attitude towards work itself, measured by two outcome variables: ‘goals
at work’ and ‘satisfaction with work’.
For details on outcome variables and dichotomization, see Article IV.

3.4 Overview of Articles

The current doctoral thesis comprises five articles. Four of the articles are
based on empirical findings—both qualitative and quantitative. In addition
to these four articles one article, Article III, is a review article which
incorporates the results of one of the empirical articles in its analysis.
The aim of the research project was to investigate the office
environment’s influence on the employees in accordance with different
respects: a) the employees’ health, well-being and job satisfaction; b)
the employees’ satisfaction with the office environment and individual
environmental factors; and c) the employees’ perception of architectural
qualities in office design, their experience of this and its influence on the
conception of their own workplace and organization.
In the following section an overview of each article is presented with
respect to aim, method and major findings. Discussions and conclusions
are presented in the last section of the chapter.

65
 66
Article 1:
Research Project

OFFICE DESIGN:
Applying Lynch’s Theory on Office Environments
This article analyses the importance of architectural quality for the
employees’ perception and experience of their offices by analyzing three
different office environments. The method developed by Lynch (1960)
for urban environments is investigated as a tool to analyze and evaluate
office design from a user perspective. The reason for investigating this
method is the notion that it is based on the employees’ perception and
experience of an environment. The article also discusses the possible
benefit of such a method in the design process.
Lynch’s method is based on the concept of ‘imagebility’ which,
according to Lynch, was the ‘quality in a physical object which gives
it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer’
(Lynch, 1960, p. 9). The method uses five different elements to measure
the ‘imageability’ of a space, which are: landmark, node, path, edge,
and district. In the investigation of how useful the method would be
for evaluating interior office environments, these elements have been
‘translated’ to fit an interior architecture.
Out of a sample of nineteen semi-structured interviews with
employees in different office environments, three were selected for
further investigation and analysis. All three had internal differences with
regard to office type and/or office size. The investigation of the three
office environments reinforced the hypothesis that valuable knowledge
could be obtained, knowledge that probably would have been hard to
access using alternative methods. A plan layout analysis which is based
on architectural design focuses on spatial, functional and aesthetical
aspects, but the user perspective is left out. Useful information for the
design process is thus, in the author’s opinion, lost and the full picture
of an environment’s impact is not obtained. For example, if employees
in an office were interviewed regarding how they actually perceive and
use their current environment prior to changing that environment,
a lot of mistakes and bad solutions could possibly be avoided in the
design of the new environment. Lynch’s method it is possible to foresee
where landmarks most likely will appear and paths will develop, but a
perception analysis—a perception not owned by the trained architect
but by the employees themselves. In other words, this method provides
guidance on how an architectural design will be received by employees at
its completion. So it is a useful tool for creating the architect’s intended
environment.
Besides the benefits attained by using Lynch´s method in the design
process, another major finding of the study is that to a high degree the

66
 67
employees’ experiences of architectural quality in the office appear to be

Research Project
independent of the scale of the office and the office type. They appear
instead to be determined by the architectural quality of the plan layout
combined with the quality of other architectural features in the office
design.
The inevitable question, then, is why the employee’s perceptions
and the use of space are of interest in the design process. The main
reason is that the physical environment can probably be designed to
reinforce human behavior and well-being (e.g. Becker, 1981; S. Cohen et
al., 1991; Evans & McCoy, 1998; Lawsons, 2001). Therefore this makes it
of interest and significance not only to architects, direct users and clients
of architectural services, but also to the general public. Since employees’
perceptions and use of space are important, it is critical to be able to
find a way to transfer them into the architectural design process. In the
author’s opinion, Lynch’s method may well fulfill this need since it is
based on graphical illustrations and easily translated to the architectural
process.
Key words: office environments, design process, architecture, Lynch’s method,
‘imageability,’ user perception, experience

Article 2:
Differences in Satisfaction with Office Environment
Among Employees in Different Office Types
This article investigates the satisfaction with the physical office
environment and individual environmental factors in the environment
among employees in seven office types. The seven office types identified
in current office design are: cell-office, shared-room office, open plan
office(including small, medium-sized and large open plan office), flex-
office and combi-office (Ahlin & Westlander, 1991; Duffy, 1999). The
office types are defined by their architectural and functional features. It is
necessary to use both classes of features, since there is a strong correlation
between the architectural features of an office—physical features where
spatial organization is the dominant aspect—and functional features, the
actual work taking place in the office using attributes that derive from
these functional features. The office types used should be construed as
prototypes, since it is rare to find offices that completely fit into a specific
category; some overlaps always exist.
This article and article IV are based on a sample consisting of
491 employees from twenty-six different companies/divisions in larger
companies in the Stockholm area, Sweden. For the analyses 469 employees
 The total sample comprised 491 employees, of whom only 469 were selected for
analyses due to missing information on background factors for 22 of the em-
ployees.

67
 68
Research Project rated their physical environment and psychological responses, both of
which are closely related to environmental factors, such as privacy and
personalization.
The article focuses on differences in satisfaction with environmental
factors in the following domains: 1) ambient factors, 2) noise and privacy,
and 3) design-related factors (workstation, workspace, and office design).
Current office research investigating the perception of environmental
factors among employees tends to compare conventional cell-offices
with open plan offices without clearly describing what kinds of open
plan offices are being studied; the open plan offices are simply defined
by the fact that a group of employees share a common workspace with
no walls between workstations. They lack specifications, with regard to
architectural and functional features, and thus clear definitions. It is the
intention of this article to investigate both cell-offices and the internal
differences between the various office types in which workspaces and
work facilities are shared.
The outcome variables were defined by the questionnaire as
either individual—covering the three different domains of the study and
categorized as either ‘good environment’ or ‘inferior environment—or
summary scales obtained by sums of inferior outcomes. This was done
separately for ambient factors, noise and privacy, and design-related
factors.
In the statistical analysis, logistic regression models were used
in both univariate and multivariate analyses of individual items. In the
latter, adjustments were made for the confounders: age, gender, job rank
and line of business. The first three items are well known confounders
in all kinds of empirical research. Line of business was added to the
study since it was expected to influence the employees, as there ought
to be different conditions in different lines of businesses. The main,
explanatory variable for differences in perception was office type, with
cell-office as the pre-chosen, reference category.
The summary scales were analyzed using Poisson regression, while
the individual variables were analyzed using logistic regression.
Overall, among employees in different office types the study
found differences in satisfaction with the office environment, which
were related to the psychological responses. Differences in the frequency
of complaints were also found in the three different domains of
environmental factors. The analysis of frequencies in complaints within
the three domain showed that noise and privacy caused most dissatisfaction
among employees. Cell-office had a prominent position with regard to
satisfaction with the office environment in general, followed by flex-
office. Although in many respects cell-office scored the highest with
regard to design-related factors, this office type had, however, low values
in terms of its social aspects. It had the lowest value of all for workspace
68
 69
design’s support of affinity. Employees in flex-offices were the most

Research Project
satisfied with the social aspects of the physical environment. The highest
prevalence of dissatisfaction with the physical environment was reported
among employees in medium and large open plan offices. For example,
with regard to noise disturbances, 12% of the employees in cell-offices
reported disturbances ‘by voices, office equipment etc.’, compared with
50% and 45% in large and medium open plan offices respectively.
In this article it is hypothesized that the differences in environmental
satisfaction between employees in different office types can be ascribed
to the features of the office types. This argument was reinforced when
the differences persisted after adjustment for the confounders in the
multivariate analysis. The unique features of the cell-offices explain the
prominently higher satisfaction with the physical environment among
employees in cell-offices: this offers autonomy and personal control
of the environment with regard to ambient factors, noise, and privacy
conditions etc. In other office types some sort of compromise regarding
shared space is unavoidable. It is only with the aspects of environmental
control interaction and affinity that employees in cell-offices were less
satisfied. In other words, the same architectural and functional aspects that
are positive from the perspectives of ambient factor and personal control
are not so with regards to the aspects interaction and affinity. There were
internal differences between office types that share workspace and work
facilities, though there was no predictable pattern between them. On the
other hand, those in medium-sized and large open plan offices reported
distinctly lower satisfaction than employees in other office types. The
relatively high satisfaction score among employees in flex-offices can
probably be imputed to the fact that this office type offers independence
as well as freedom of choice. The high dissatisfaction among employees
in medium-sized and large open plan can probably also be attributed
to the features of these office types. The ability to seek privacy when
necessary, which possibly has a mediating effect on other disturbances, is
not offered in these office types. An additional factor is that shared work
facilities, such as printers, tend to be in open spaces.
Key words: office environment, employees, office type, architectural features, functional
features, satisfaction, environmental factors

Article 3:
Office Experiences
In this article the experiences of the physical office environment is
discussed, namely its influence on the individual employee and thereby
its influence on the organization to which the employee belongs, An
interdisciplinary approach to the subject is applied as the article touches
upon numerous fields of research that deal with how the work environment
69
70
influences employees and their experiences. Despite practicing a holistic
Research Project
approach, the focus here is on the interior experiences of office
environments among employees.
This article analyzes the employees’ office experiences in two
ways: a) by framing the physical work environment’s influence on the
office employee in a model developed by organizational theorist Davis
(1994); and b) by categorizing the office experience into two groups of
experiences, based on their nature and problems related to it. To clarify
the interpretation of the two approaches to office experiences—i.e. how
they can be understood and analyzed through them—this article uses the
results of the Article II study.
Davis’s model (1994) describes how physical office environments
influence employees. In his article he evaluates the interdisciplinary field
of office research. He analyses the office environment’s influence on the
members of an organization, i.e. the employees and the management, by
dividing the office environment into the following categories: 1) physical
structure; 2) physical stimuli; and 3) symbolic artifacts. Through Davis’s
division of the physical office environment, the differences between the
employees and the organization are emphasized, and this division clearly
shows the various means by which the physical environment exerts its
influence on the former. He suggests that these categories have a pervasive
effect. The division is here used as a starting point for a discussion
concerning the perception of the physical office environment and its
influence on the individual and the organization. The three categories
are useful when investigating employees’ office experience of individual
environmental factors and psychological concepts in the organizational
context of environmental influence on behavior and attitudes.
The article also discusses the office experience from a more practical
point of view based on the nature of the experience and its components,
and on how problems are related to it. The office experiences are here
classified as either: 1) design-specific experiences; or 2) experiences related to
general conditions of an office environment that have a general solution
to the environmental problems they cause, from here on called general
experiences.
Design-specific experiences—are dependent on the unique condition in
each specific office, highly determined by its office type which is defined
by its architectural and functional features. This condition is the context
that sets the framework for these experiences. The design-specific group
of experiences is to a great extent dependent on the spatial conditions
at a specific location. When there is a problem related to design-specific
experiences it is solved by case-specific solutions based on the architect’s/
designer’s previous experiences in solving this type of problem. Solutions
to problems which have their origin in design-specific experiences are

70
 71
dependent on both the skill of the individual architect/ designer and

Research Project
the available knowledge of the problem within the profession. At a
professional level the transfer of case-specific solutions to a repertoire of
knowledge is important, in order to be able to reuse others’ experiences
in new design projects (Schön, 1983).
General experiences—are, on the other hand, not related to a
specific design of the office but to the general conditions in the office.
Work environment problems that are related to general experiences
can be handled in the design process by general solutions—the so-
called cookbook solutions—such as regulations and specified demands
described in programs. The solutions to this group of problems are
dependent on the architect’s/designer’s insight into the problem and
the comprehension of the regulations that will work as guidelines in the
design process.
These two groups of experiences are highly coupled, for they
have a mediating effect on each other. For example, dissatisfaction
with a general experience such as ventilation noise often influences the
experience and perception of design-related factors which are design-
specific experiences by nature.
Davis’s framework combined with the aforementioned classification
of office experiences provides access to the subject of environmental
influences in an office setting from two different perspectives which
complement each other: 1) the theoretical and scientific perspective; and
2) the practitioner’s perspective. A combination of the two perspectives
provides a more holistic approach to the understanding of office
experiences, but also a method to transfer research into practice which
is important for creating office environments that support employees as
well as organizations in the best possible way.
Key words: office employee, organization, physical environment, office experience,
design-specific experience, general experience

Article 4:
Office Type in Relation to
Health, Well-being and Job Satisfaction
This article investigates the influence of office type on employees’ health,
well-being and job satisfaction. The same office types as described in
Article II are investigated here.
The study is based on a sample consisting of 491 employees
from twenty-six different companies/divisions in large companies in the
Stockholm area, Sweden that was analyzed in Article II. The focus is now
on the employees’ rating of their health status and job satisfaction. The
outcome variables were defined in the questionnaire as either individual

71
72
items defined by perceived, psychosocial work environment and attitudes
Research Project
towards work itself, and categorized as ‘good’ or ‘inferior’, or as summary
scales obtained by sums of inferior outcomes. This was done separately
for all three areas of health: emotional health, quality of sleep, and job
satisfaction.
In the statistical analysis 469 employees were used of the 491 in
the sample due to a lack of adequate information on essential covariates.
Logistic regression models were used in univariate as well as multivariate
analyses for the individual items. The main explanatory variable for
health, in accordance with the aim of the study, was office type. Four
additional covariates—age, gender, job rank, and line of business—were
included as confounding factors. The first three factors are well-known
confounders for individuals’ health and well-being, and to some extent for
job satisfaction as well. Line of business has been added as a confounder
since there are presumably different work environment conditions in
different lines of business. Since the aim of the study was to investigate
the role of office type, the influence of these background variables had
to be taken into account in the multivariate analysis. The analyses of the
summary scales were analogous to the analysis of the individual items,
with the exception that Poisson regression was used instead of logistic
regression.
The results of the study show clear differences between employees
in different office types. Risk of inferior health and poor well-being were
found in both medium-sized open plan offices (10-24 people per room)
and small open plan offices (4-9 people per room). Employees in these
office types manifested significantly higher risks of poor health compared
with those in other office types. In terms of job satisfaction, medium
open plan and combi-offices evinced the highest prevalence of inferior
job satisfaction. The best chances for good health and well-being were
found among employees in flex-offices, followed by those in cell-offices.
These employees rated their health better than those in other office types.
With regards to job satisfaction, employees in flex-offices and shared-
room offices scored the highest in job satisfaction, followed by those in
cell-offices. There were, however, internal differences regarding which
items for job satisfaction the employees were most satisfied with in these
office types. (Notify: Erratum for table 7 in Article IV).­­
We hypothesize that the different architectural and functional
features of these office types explain this difference in distribution.
Employees in cell-offices scored positively on outcome variables that
related to factors such as control and independence, while employees in
 Erratum table 7, an open circle (‘o’) should have been printed at the intersection
between the row, ‘Quality of sleep,’ and the column, ‘Flex office.’ Filled circles (‘•’)
should have been printed at the intersection between the row ‘Quality of sleep’ and
the columns ‘Medium-Sized Open Plan Office’ and ‘Large Open Plan Office’.
72
 73
flex-offices were satisfied with regards to variables related to cooperation

Research Project
and leadership. The conclusion, based on the results of this study, is that
the hypothesis that the office type defined by its features is an explanatory
variable for health, well-being and job satisfaction has been reinforced.
The reinforcement is based on the fact that the significance has, in many
cases, persisted after the adjustment for gender, age, job rank and line of
business. The results indicate a correlation between office environment
and health, well-being, and job satisfaction, but they must be investigated
further. Enhanced knowledge in this field of research could lead to
important advances at individual, organizational and societal levels.
Key words: office type, architectural features, functional features, employees, health,
well-being, job satisfaction

Article 5:
AESTHETICS VERSUS FUNCTION:
What Matters to Office Employees?
This explorative study aims to investigate the office architecture´s
importance for employees´ perceptions of their own workplace and
organization. It investigates the two key components of architecture—
the aesthetical and functional dimensions—and their importance for the
employees´ perception. The manuscript focuses on questions such as: 1a)
Which dimension is most important for the individual employee and for
the workplace as a whole? b) Does it deviate between employees in different
categories of office type? 2) What impact do the two dimensions have
on the employee´s views of their own workplace and the organization?
3) What importance does architectural quality have with regard to the
former questions?
The capacity of architecture to reinforce certain experiences and
behaviors has been recognized in research (e.g., Canter, 1976; Davis,
1984; Lawson, 2001). This study pertains to this research tradition as
it applies an architectural perspective to issues that traditionally belong
to the field of organizational management. The knowledge of the
importance of architecture and its two key components with regard to
employees´ perceptions of their workplace and organization is limited.
This explorative study hopes thus to contribute by investigating the
architectural experience in the office. By recognizing the varieties of open
plan offices that exist in contemporary office design, it also aims to see if
there are differences between employees´ experiences in different office
categories. This variation in open plan offices has not been identified
in comparative office studies, which instead have compared employees’
in open plan offices in general versus individual offices, so-called cell-
offices.
73
74
A qualitative approach is applied in the research issues of this
Research Project
empirical study, based on nineteen, semi-structured, in-depth interviews
with office employees from eighteen different companies/divisions.
The sample comes from a larger study of 491 office employees in
twenty-six companies/divisions in the Stockholm area, Sweden. The
nineteen respondents work in one of the seven office types identified
in contemporary office design. These office types are defined by their
architectural features, physical features, of which the spatial layout is the
most dominant aspect, and their functional features, i.e. how work is carried
out and organized in the office. Due to the small sample size, the office
types are categorized into three groups: 1) Individual and smaller shared
workspace: office types with smaller workspace for one individual or a few
individuals (including cell-office and shared-room office); 2) Traditional
open plan office: office types with shared workspace of different sizes
(including small open plan office, medium-sized open plan office and
large open plan office); and 3) More flexible open plan offices: open plan
offices that utilize flexibility for work and have a plan layout and IT-
system that supports the more flexible work methods (including flex-
and combi-office).
The study results showed that the employees mainly focused on the
work itself and thereafter on the social life at the workplace. The physical
work was rarely mentioned without my prompting, as it was taken for
granted. Which office category the employee worked in also appeared
to influence their focus: in individual and smaller, shared workspaces
the focus was on the work itself, whereas in larger shared workspaces
it was mainly on the social life. The latter group of employees gave
both more detailed information about the office environment and had
a more nuanced image of their own office. Overall the employees were
positive about their physical work environment. The positive experiences
of the office environments were mainly concerned with the aesthetical
dimensions of the architecture, whereas the negative comments dealt
with the functional dimensions. The former dimension was also given
both more space and importance in the interviews. This appeared not
only to set the agenda for employees’ perceptions of the own workplace
and the image of the organization but also their perception of the
functional dimensions which were only emphasized when the closest
work environment—the workstation and its proximate area—was
discussed.
Taking into consideration the fact that the study was explorative,
the most interesting result in my opinion was the ascertained importance
of the aesthetical dimension of the architecture for the overall image
of the workplace and the organization. The aesthetical dimension
appeared to work at a higher level than the functional, and thus it should

74
 75
be given more attention in the design of work environments. The role

Research Project
of the aesthetical dimension seems to be underestimated in the debate
concerning what a good environment is, as the focus traditionally has
been on functionality, while aesthetics has been considered a luxury. The
results indicate that the aesthetical dimension does not only operate at an
individual level but also at a group level, for it influences the employees´
perceptions of the workplace and the organization as a whole.
Key words: office experience, office employees, architecture, aesthetical dimension,
functional dimension, workstation, workplace

3.5 Discussion and Conclusions

In this section major findings and contributions of the empirical studies
are discussed. Thereafter shortcomings and limitations are addressed,
followed by concluding remarks and a brief outline of potential directions
for future research.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
The purpose of the present doctoral thesis was to study the office
environment’s influence on employees and organizations, with an emphasis
on the employees’ experiences. The main issues turned out to be health,
well-being and job satisfaction. The office architecture’s importance for
employees’ perceptions of their own workplaces and organizations was
also studied. This has not only been done because of the capacity of
architecture to reinforce certain experiences and behaviors, but also to
understand its impact on health status and job satisfaction. Two major
findings in this research are of a conceptual nature: a) the recognition of
the importance of the architectural and functional features that define
the office types; and b) a new and more sensitive definition of open
plan offices based on the number of people sharing a workspace. Both
concepts appear to be of great importance for health status and job
satisfaction, but also for environmental satisfaction and perceptions of
employee’s own workplaces.
To analyze the office environment based on the architectural and
functional features combined that define the different office types was
beneficial as the differences between office types, which at first appear to
be small, thereby could be detected and understood. The subdivision of
the traditional open plan offices into three categories— small, medium-
sized and large open plan—was also highly beneficial in the analysis of
the quantitative data, and is more informative than the definitions in
previous research where group size was not considered. The acquired
knowledge of the internal differences between employees in different
office types with regard to: a) employees’ health, well-being and job
satisfaction, b) satisfaction with office environments and individual

75
76
environmental factors, and c) their perception of their own workplaces
Research Project
and organizations is significantly important for the understanding
of the office environment’s impact. This knowledge is a vital aspect
for considering the design process in order to achieve better office
environments from an employee’s perspective.
HEALTH, WELL-BEING AND JOB SATISFACTION
One of the major findings in the analysis was the clear difference
between the office types with regard to self-rated health status as well as
job satisfaction (Article IV). Multivariate analysis remains the procedure
for calculating the effect of office type, after adjustment for age,
gender, job rank and line of business. Health status was divided into:
1) physical health, which included sick leave, general health and physical
and psychological health; and 2) emotional health, which concerned
emotional aspects of health and sleep quality; it is known that the two
latter aspects can influence each other. The employees in cell-offices have
in general a better self-rated health compared with those in other office
types. These employees also reported a relatively high job satisfaction.
The high ranking of the cell-office with regard to health was not that
surprising, considering it is often referred to as the best office type
from an employee perspective (e.g., Brookes & Kaplan, 1972; review by
Sundstrom, 1986; Sundstrom et al., 1994; review by Wineman, 1982).
The good, self-rated health status among employees in flex-offices
was more surprising since this office type has often been harshly criticized
due to its lack of a personal workstation. Having an individual workstation
is closely connected with the psychological concept of personalization
which in turn is considered a basic human need. Cell-office and flex-
office rated well for different outcome variables of general health status.
In the outcome of the analysis of physical and psychological health, the
cell-office, flex-office, and shared-room office all ranked well. When it
comes to sick leave, the flex-office employees had the best ranking. Apart
from the obvious explanation that this office type is good for employee
health, another possible explanation is that only ‘survivors’ remain in this
office type over time. By ‘survivors’ is meant the people who actively
choose to work in this unique office type and are well suited to work
there. An additional explanation could be that there is a ‘hidden sick
leave’ since this office type allows the individual to work from home by
choice.
With regard to emotional health, the employees in flex-offices
reported the best ranking, closely followed by employees in cell-offices
(see Erratum for table 7 in Article IV). These two office types also had
good and similar outcomes for quality of sleep, but for some other
outcomes they differed, although not to a great extent. Cell-office

76
 77
employees reported better scores on aspects such as having no problem

Research Project
with efficiency and accuracy in work due to emotional problems, whereas
employees in the flex-office reported less problems with work capacity
due to lack of energy or feeling sad and depressed. These differences are
interesting for a number of reasons. Could it be that the cell-office due
to its features allows more freedom to concentrate and consequently its
employees find it easier to carry out the work efficiently and accurately?
Another possibility is that regarding these aspects employees in the cell-
office have better emotional health because the cell-office’s environment
reinforces certain characteristics such as the facility for efficiency and
accuracy. Why flex-office employees reported the least problems regarding
lack of energy and being sad and depressed is hard to explain. Possibly it
is connected to the same theory used to explain why of all employees they
have the lowest rate of sick-leave. The satisfaction with leadership as well
as the goals at work could of course be another feasible explanation.
With regard to job satisfaction, employees in the cell-office ran­­­­­­
ked highly which was the same result for employees in the flex-office
and shared-room office. The distribution for the separate items for job
satisfaction was however different for the three office types. Employees
in cell-offices reported greater satisfaction with work itself in comparison
with the other two categories which may be related to the greater focus
on individual work in this office type. The employees in flex-offices
and shared-room offices were, on the other hand, more satisfied with
social aspects of job satisfaction such as the relationship to the closest
supervisor and cooperation within the work group.
Concerning all aspects of health and well-being, there was a higher
prevalence of lower health status in small and medium-sized open plan
offices (see Erratum for table 7 in Article IV). They stood out as being
‘high risk’ office types in this respect. In terms of health in general,
excluding emotional health, large open plan office employees reported
ratings indicating higher risks. With regard to emotional health, there was
higher risk for employees in medium-sized open plans, tightly followed
by those in small open plan offices. They reported high risk on several
outcome variables for emotional health which is remarkable. There were,
however, in these two office types some internal differences with regard
to the distribution of high risk outcomes among employees.
The presented results show that office types which can be classified
as high risk in terms of job satisfaction not necessarily are the same as
those in which there are high risks for health and well-being. Medium-
sized open plan offices demonstrated a high risk in both aspects though.
The highest prevalence of job dissatisfaction was though reported in
combi-offices. There was a somewhat different distribution in combi-
offices and medium-sized open plan offices in terms of dissatisfaction

77
78
beside the dissatisfaction both groups of employees’ had with work
Research Project
itself. Those in medium-sized open plan offices were dissatisfied with the
lack of cooperation, an aspect which employees in combi-offices were
satisfied with. In comparison, employees in combi-offices were mostly
dissatisfied with leadership and work goals.
To summarize, these results are interesting because the estimated
effect of office type on health, well-being and job satisfaction has
persisted after adjustment for the potentially confounding factors of age,
gender, job rank and line of business. This reinforces the hypothesis that
the office type as defined by its architectural and functional features has
an influence on the health, well-being and job satisfaction among the
employees.
ENVIRONMENTAL SATISFACTION WITH THE OFFICE
There were two major findings with regard to the two aspects of
satisfaction with office environments and individual environmental
factors between employees in different office types (Article II). At first
there was the substantial difference between employees in office types
where the employees share workspaces and facilities and those working
in cell-offices.
That cell-office employees were more satisfied with their physical
environment, including design-related factors, might not be a surprise
since features that allow independence and control over one’s own
workplace in many aspects define this office type. It was only with regard
were to the workspace’s support of affinity that cell-office employees
wewless satisfied and in this respect they were the least satisfied of all
employees. The second major finding was the internal differences in
environmental satisfaction between employees in the office types in
which workspace and facilities are shared. So did, for example, flex-office
employees report high satisfaction with privacy in comparison with other
employees that share workspaces, which was unexpected. Although they
reported no ability for seclusion within their workspace, at the same time
they reported no problem with being overheard or observed.
Looking at different aspects of environmental satisfaction, it was
clear that most dissatisfaction concerned noise and privacy—two very
controversial issues in office design. The highest dissatisfaction was
reported in medium-sized and large open plan offices, with a somewhat
higher degree of disturbance from noise reported in large open plan
offices. Most satisfied with noise and privacy were employees in cell-
offices followed by those in flex-offices which as formerly discussed was
unexpected.
With regard to design-related factors, the internal differences
between the office types that share workspaces and facilities were even
clearer. Most satisfied were employees in flex-office followed by those in
78
 79
shared-room offices and small open plan offices. Flex-office stood out

Research Project
in comparison to all other office types due to the clear focus on social
aspects among its employees. They reported high satisfaction with design-
related factors such as the workspace design’s support of affinity, the
office design’s ability to reinforce interaction and access of good spaces
for breaks. The importance of this result is that it demonstrates that
cell-office and flex-office, the most contrasting office types, to have the
most satisfied employees—they satisfy different needs of the employees,
to a great extent based on their specific features. Both office types have
their respective advantages and probably suit different types of jobs
and lines of business. Regarding dissatisfaction with the physical office
environment and aspects highly connected to it, medium-sized and large
open plan offices stand out as ‘high risk’ office types as their employees
reported significantly higher degree of dissatisfaction.
The most important finding may be the great differences in terms
of dissatisfaction between employees in office types where workspace
and facilities are shared. The differences in perception and experiences of
the office environments in these office types which share the communal
features of shared workspaces and facilities indicate that the differences
depend on other differences in architectural and functional features. In
terms of the traditional open plan offices it may well depend on the
group size as well.
OFFICE EMPLOYEE’S PERCEPTION OF ARCHITECTURE
The result of the first qualitative study presented in Article I featured
Lynch’s method (1960) for assessing architectural quality from a user
perspective, which he defined as ‘imageability.’ The method originally
developed for analyzing architectural qualities in cities as perceived by
the inhabitant was in the study found to be useful in office environments.
The method proved also to have the advantage of easily transforming
architectural experiences into graphical diagrams, which makes it easy for
the user to express his/her opinion of an environment. It is also easy
to render the user’s experiences into an architectural sketch of a plan
layout with the method. The method should thus appeal to architects
and thereby be easier to incorporate in the design process. In addition to
this a major finding of the study is that the perception of architectural
quality in the office to a high degree appears to be independent of both
office type and the scale of the office. Instead it appears to depend on the
quality of the plan layout combined with the quality of other architectural
features of the office.
In the second qualitative study, presented in Article V, the office
architecture’s importance for employee’s perceptions of the own
workplaces and organizations was investigated. The focus was on the

79
80
two key components of architecture—the aesthetical and functional
Research Project
dimensions—and their importance for the employee’s perception. The
result indicates that the physical office environment is not in focus when
the respondents think about work; it appears instead to be taken for
granted. It also demonstrates that employees in different office categories
have different foci as they think of work: those in individual and smaller,
shared workspaces focused on the work itself, whereas those in larger
shared workspaces focused on social life. An interesting finding is that
the respondents’ experiences of their office environments mainly were
positive, and their focus were on the aesthetical dimension of the office
architecture, not the functional. It was both given more importance and
associated with more positive feelings.
To summarize, together the qualitative and quantitative studies of
this doctoral thesis constitute a complementary work, as the analysis of
the quantitative data would have been harder to conduct without having
heard the employees’ own words about their workplaces described in
the qualitative data, i.e. in the in-depth interviews. Both approaches were
thus necessary in this doctoral work as the semi-structured interviews
brought the attention to the employee’s personal perceptions of the
office architecture which was useful in the analysis of results from the
quantitative data about the physical environment.
Limitations and Shortcomings
There are some limitations and shortcomings of this research project that
need to be mentioned. A major limitation is the fact that the empirical study
is cross-sectional, as both the qualitative and quantitative studies were
conducted from January to July 2004. The fact that the respondents were
studied at a defined time period and not over a period of time results in a
weaker causal interpretation. Hence no definite cause for the differences
between employees in different office types can be established.The result
is nevertheless well in line with the stated hypothesis that the office type
can be an explanatory variable for health, well-being and job satisfaction
among office employees. It is also in line with the hypothesis that the
office type can be an explanatory variable for the perception of different
environmental factors and related aspects. Despite this, with a larger
sample and an enlarged database covering the individuals’ experiences of
previous office locations, some information on the effect of transitions
from one office type to another might have been retrieved and analyzed.
This limitation concerns especially the qualitative studiewhich have a
smaller sample.
Another shortcoming is that the study was conducted in only one
location, the Stockholm area, a typical urban setting having different life
conditions than in less populated areas. The optimal would have been if

80
 81
it had been done in other locations in Sweden simultaneously in order

Research Project
to isolate the possible influence of location. An enlarged study—in time
and space—would, however, put much higher demands on available
resources.
Information was obtained from validated questionnaires used
in previous studies on working conditions, thus the obtained data may
be considered valid for the research purpose in this respect. Scores for
symptoms and perceptions were formulated on ordinal scales. To comply
with more strict assumptions for the statistical analysis, the items were
dichotomized, which leads to some loss of information. Our belief is
however that this approach balances adequately the requirements of
higher validity in the statistical models.
Correction was made for the same set of confounding variables
in all the multivariate analyses. This choice was both based on a priori
grounds drawn from experiences from similar studies and on the fact
that the potential confounding variables were differently distributed for
the investigated office types. In an overarching and more exploratory
investigation such as this one, of the three areas of interest (i.e. health
status, job satisfaction and satisfaction with the office environment)
measured with several items, this approach was deemed to be satisfactory.
Yet a limitation in the statistical analysis is the number of confounders,
but with the size of the sample it was not appropriate to use more
covariates in the multivariate analysis. Other factors than the chosen
confounders would certainly have influenced employee perception of the
environment, e.g. the general life situation and the socio-economic group
of the respondents. However, the belief is that these factors would not
cause a severely uneven distribution for the seven office types, once our
four confounders have been considered.
Another issue concerns the structure of the models. Should
the covariates be considered as confounders, mediators or modifiers?
Statistical interactions were tested and found to be less important;
thus modification seems less relevant in this case. Mediating or
confounding is another choice. Based on the same argument, i.e. for
an overall assessment of all these items, the choice was confounding,
but it is recognized that a more detailed analysis of a small number
of specific items could lead to specialized and somewhat different
models.
Finally, individual p-values for testing statistical significance
should be interpreted with some caution. Since several items are
analyzed, more emphasis should be directed to the overall picture.
Furthermore, the results for the shared-room offices are based on
the smallest sub-sample. Hence they are most vulnerable to sampling
fluctuations.

81
82
Concerning the qualitative data a limitation is the fact that
Research Project
only nineteen employees were interviewed, thus not all twenty-six
companies/divisions were represented in the sample. A larger sample
could possibly have given somewhat different results. Due to the
duration of the in-depth interviews—between 1.5 to 2 hours each—it
was, however, not possible within the scope of the research project
to include more subjects. The interviews focused on the architectural
interpretations of the environment and among others things its
influence on cooperation within workgroups and the office as a whole.
It was not possible to control for the influence of organizational
culture on the perception and experience among the subjects. The
organizational climate has however been surveyed in every case
and has been considered during the analysis. That individuals hold
different experiences and preferences was however perceived as a
more important limitation. Individual preferences are naturally hard
to control for in this type of qualitative study, but one has to be aware
of the problem.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This doctoral thesis is an attempt to fill the gaps in our knowledge of how
the physical environment influences the office employees and thereby
their organizations, with the focus on health status, job satisfaction
and satisfaction within the office environment. In doing so it has
been important to simultaneously investigate the architectural design’s
importance for employees’ office experiences and their perceptions of
own workplace and organizations.
The study presents results that demonstrate that the office type
itself, defined by its architectural and functional features, has an impact
on the employee health status and job satisfaction. The results also evince
that most likely the office type itself has an impact on the satisfaction
with office environments, as well as certain environmental factors. This
conclusion is based on the fact that in many cases the differences in health
status, job satisfaction and environmental satisfaction persisted among
employees in different office types after adjustment for confounding
factors well known for having an influence on these outcomes.
Certain characteristics stand out as playing a more important role
for the employees with regard to the subject of the thesis. Summarizing
the results it shows that the employees in cell-offices are clearly most
satisfied with their office environments, followed by those in flex-offices.
The cell-office employees rated low only on social aspects of design-
related factors. One of the major findings from this research are the
differences between employees in office types where workspaces and
work facilities are shared. Here the architectural and functional features

82
 83
that define each office type, as well as the size of the group sharing a

Research Project
workspace, seem to play a decisive role. Based on the derived results,
medium-size and large open plan offices could be described as high-risk
office types in term of satisfaction with the office environment. In term
of health status the risks for worse health status and poor well-being
are indicated for small and medium-sized open plan offices. Employees
in these office types showed distinguishably higher risks compared with
those in other office types, and with regards to cell-office the risk was
statistically significantly higher for ill health. The best likelihood for good
health was in cell-office and flex-office. In terms of job satisfaction
employees in medium-sized open plan offices and combi-offices showed
the highest prevalence of low job satisfaction, wheras the likelihood of
high job satisfaction was best in shared-room offices and flex-offices,
followed tightly by cell-offices.
Another conclusion is that more accurate office definitions are
needed in future research when investigating the impact of environmental
factors on employees, but also that the architecture’s role for employees’
perceptions of the own workplaces and organizations needs to be
investigated further. This is important in order to get a better picture of
the environmental influences on office employees and thereby improve
the design process in order to create better office environments from
both an employee and an organizational perspective. In respect to this
architects have to understand the impact of different environmental
factors in an office if they want to foresee the outcome of their design
proposals.
The aim of this research was to supply the design processes with
an improved basis for decision-making, as it tends to be more based on
subjective opinions than scientific knowledge. With improved knowledge
important gains could be achieved at an individual, organizational and
societal level. A lot of decisions are made based on short-term gains
since the initial costs are overestimated in relation to the life cycle cost of
a building and its users. The use of this knowledge for better allocation
of investments in buildings could, in other words, potentially reduce the
costs for personnel, e.g. less sick-leave, increased diligence, etc.
Thus the focus in a debate on office design should be on how
the architecture can support the individual employee as well as the
organization as a whole. Supportive in the sense means that work will be
carried out in environments that support different aspects of work, i.e.
individual, concentrated work but also social interaction and cooperation
between colleagues. These factors have decisive impact not only on
the office employees’ environmental satisfaction, health status and
job satisfaction but also their perceptions of the own workplaces and
organizations. The great challenge lies however in implementing these

83
85
results with different parties that influence the office design such as
ResearchProject
architects, real estate owners and managers. Despite the difficulties that
comes with this, an interdisciplinary approach is critical when designing
offices, as there are many factors influencing the employees and these
are found in different disciplines. These results also demonstrate that
there is a correlation between office types and the health, well-being and
job satisfaction that needs to be investigated further in a longitudinal
perspective. In forthcoming studies it is important to look deeper into
office types and the features that seem to play a decisive role in this
interaction. A central aspect should thus be to investigate whether
these features coincide with the elements used by Lynch (1960) to rate
imageability, i.e. whether the office environments that are rated as having
high imageability by the employees are the same as the ones where
the employees report good health status and high job satisfaction. An
additional aspect to investigate is if there are individual environmental
or design-related factors that play an essential part in the evaluation
of imageability. As the aesthetical dimensions of architecture seem to
be of greater importance for employees’ satisfaction with the work
environment, it would be interesting to investigate these in relation to the
health status and job satisfaction as well. Finally, do these environmental
factors and design-related factors relate to specific features of the office
types that are important for the health, job satisfaction and satisfaction
with the own office environment? Are they also related to factors that
have a great impact on the employees’ perception of the own workplace
as well as the organization as a whole?

84
 85

References
References

Ahlberg, E. (1980). Synpunkter på utformning av kontorslokaler (Opinions about office design).

Stockholm: Arbetsvetenskaplig vidareutbildning, KTH (Eng. Occupational science-
further education, Royal Institute of Technology).
Ahlin, J., & Westlander, G. (1991). Kontorslokaler och kontorsarbete - två perspektiv på kontoret som
arbetsplats (Eng. Office spaces and office work - two perspectives on the office as a workplace). Solna,
Sweden: Arbetsmiljöinstitutet (The Swedish National Institute for Working Life).
Aiello, J. R., Epstein, Y. M., & Karlin, R. A. (1975). Effects of crowding on electrodermal
activity. Sociological Symposium, 14, 42-57.
Allen, T. J. (1997). Architecture and Communication Among Product Development Engineers, WP #165-
97, Soan WP#3983. Cambridge. MA: The International Center for Research on the
Management of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Allvin, M., Aronsson, G., Hagström, T., Johansson, G., & Lundberg, U. (2006). Gränslöst arbete
-socialpsykologiska perspektiv på det nya arbetslivet (Eng. Work without limits - a psychosocial
perspective on the new working life). Malmö: Liber.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Altman, I. (1976). Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environment and Behavior, 8, 7-29.
Altman, I. (1977). Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specific? Journal of Social
Issues, 33(3), 66-84.
Alvesson, M. (2000). Ledning av kunskapsföretag. En studie av ett datakonsultföretag (Eng. Managing a
knowledge intensive company. A study of a computer consultancy company.) (3:1 ed.). Stockholm:
Norstedts Juridik AB.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological
Bulletin, 80(4), 286-303.
Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and shopping intentions: The
intervention effect of price fairness and perceived affects. Journal of Business Research,
56, 551-561.
Baldry, C., Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (1997). Sick or tired? Working in the modern office. Work
Employment and Society, 11(3), 519-539.
Beaubien, J. M. (2005). Moderation. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Statistics in Behavioral Science (Vol. 3, pp. 1256-1258). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bechtel, R. (1976). Enclosing Behavior. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Becker, F. (1981). Workspace: creating environments in organizations. New York: Praeger.
Becker, F. (1982). The Successful Office: How to Create a Workspace That‘s Right for You. Reading,
Mass.: Addison Wesley.

85
86
References Becker, F., & Sims, W. (2001). Offices that work. Balancing Communication, Flexibility and Cost. Ithaka,
New York: International Workplace Studies Program, NYS College of Human
Ecology, Cornell University.
Becker, F., Sims, W., & Schoss, J. (2003). Interaction, Identity and Collocation: What Value Is a
Corporate Campus? Ithaca, New York: Cornell University International Workplace
Studies Program (IWSP).
Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by Design, Mapping the High-Performance Workscape. San
Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Becker, F., Tennessen, C., & Dahl, L. (1997). Workplace Change: Managing Workplace Change. Ithaca,
New York: Cornell University International Workplace Studies Program (IWSP).
Bedoire, F. (1979). Trälhav, landskap och celler. (Eng. Bullpen-offices, landscape offices and
celltype office). Arkitektur (The Swedish Architectural Review), 1:79.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the work place. London: Routledge.
Bell, P., Fisher, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Bencivenga, D. (1998). A humanistic approach to space. HR Magazine, March, 68-78.
Bengtsson, J. (2003). Low frequency noise during work - effects on performance and annoyance. Unpublished
Ph. D. Thesis, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborgs University, Göteborg, Sweden.
BOSTI. (1981). The Impact of Office Environment on Productivity and Quality of Working Life:
Comprehensive Findings. Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological
Innovation.
Brookes, M. J., & Kaplan, A. (1972). The office environment: Space planning and effective
behavior. Human Factors, 14, 373-391.
Byström, M. (1999). Hörselnedsättning och störning av buller - jämförelse mellan kvinnor och män (Eng.
Hearing impairment and noise annoyance - a comparison between women and men) (1999:3 ed.).
Solna: Arbetslivsinstitutet (The National Institute for Working Life).
Canter, D. (1976). Environmental interaction. New York: International Universities Press.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: Architectural Press.
Canter, D., & Stringer, P. (1975). Environment Interaction: Psychological Approaches to Our Physical
Surroundings. New York: International Universities Press.
Carlman, M. (1935). En modern bank- och kontorsbyggnad i U.S.A. (Eng. A modern bank and
office building in the U.S.A.). Byggmästaren, Arkitektupplagan, 1(2), 3-8.
Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and interactive effectsd of the physical work
environment on attitudes. Environment & Behavior, 24(5), 579-601.
Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1995). Perception of work and workplace: Mediators of the
relationship between job level and employee reactions. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 68, 321-326.
Charles, K., & Veitch, J. (2002). Internal Report No. IRC-IR-845. Environmental Satisfaction in Open-
Plan Environments: 2. Effects of Workstation Size, Partition Height and Windows. Ottawa,
Canada: Institute of Research in Construction.
Chesney, M., & Orth-Gomér, K. (1998). Women, stress, and heart disease. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
Christensson, J. (2009). Is it possible to creat a good environment in open plan offices? Paper presented at
the Euronoise 2009, Edinburgh, Scotland 26-28 October.
Christiansson, C., & Eiserman, M. (1998). Framtidens kontor- kontorets framtid (The office of the future
- the future for the office) (32 ed.). Laholm: Byggförlaget.
Clausen, G., & Wyon, D. P. (2005). The combined effects of many indoor environmental factors on
acceptability and office work performance. Paper presented at the Indoor Air.
Cohen, L. (2007). Bridging of two streams of office research: A comparison of design/behavior
and management journal articles from 1980-2001. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 24(4), 289-307.
86
 87
Cohen, S. (1980). The aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A

References
review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 82-108.
Cohen, S., Evans, G., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D. (1986). Behavior, Health, and Environmental Stress.
New York: Plenum Press.
Cohen, S., Evans, G., Stokols, D., & Krantz, D. (1991). Behavior, Health, and Enviromental Stress.
New York: Plenum Press.
Collins, P. (1971). Architectural judgement. London: Faber & Faber.
Conrath, C. W. (1973). Communication patterns, organizational structure, and man: Some
relationships. Human Factors, 15(5), 459-470.
Dahlin, Å. (1999). Om färgupplevelse - Ett arkitekturpedagogiskt perspektiv (Eng. About colours - In an
architectural pedagogic perspective). The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Davis, T. R. V. (1984). The Influence o Physical Enviornment in Offices. Academy of Management
Review, 9(No. 2), 271-283.
Devereaux Ferguson, S., Horan, H., & Ferguson, A. M. (1997). Indicators of Permanence in
Workspace Features: Perceived Importance and Relationship to Workspace Satisfaction.
Canadian Journal of Communication, 22(1).
Dijkstra, K., Pieterse, M., & Pruyn, A. T. H. (2006). Physical environmental stimuli that turn that
turn healthcare facilities into healing environments through psychologically mediated
effects: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56, 166-181.
Duffy, F. (1974a). Office design and organizations: 1. Theoretical basis. Environment and Planning,
B(1), 217-235.
Duffy, F. (1974b). Office design and organizations: 2. The testing of a hypothetical model.
Environmental and Planning, B(1), 217-235.
Duffy, F. (1974c). Office Interior and Organizations: A Comparative Study of the Relation Between
Organizational structure and the Use of Interior Space in Sixteen Office Organizations.
Unpublished Doctorial, Princeton University, Princeton.
Duffy, F. (1978). Three offices: Reading. Architects Journal, March 29, 593-604.
Duffy, F. (1999). The new office (2nd ed.). London: Conran Octopus Limited.
Dunin-Woyseth, H., & Michl, J. (2001). Towards a Disciplinary Identity of the Making Professions: The
Oslo Millennium Reader. Göteborg: Oslo School of Architecture.
Ejhed, J., & Liljefors, A. (1990). Bättre belysning (Eng. Better lightening). Stockholm, Sweden: Statens
råd för byggforskning.
Ekman, R., & Lindstedt, G. (2002). Att beskriva stress ur ett molekylärt och cellulärt perspektiv
(Eng. To describe stress out of a molecul and cell perspective). In R. Ekman & B.
Arnetz (Eds.), Stress - molekylerna, individen, organisationen, samhället (Stress - the molecules,
the individe, the organization, the society). Stockholm: Liber.
Estabrook, M., & Sommer, R. (1972). Social rank and acquaintanceship in two academic
buildings. In W. Graham & K. H. Roberts (Eds.), Comparative Studies in Organizational
Behavior (pp. 122-128). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
EuropeanCommission. (2002a). Guidance of work-related stress.Spice of life or a kiss of death?
Luxemburg: Official Publications of the European Coummunities.
Evans, G. (1979). Behavioral and physiological consequences of crowding in humans. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 9, 27-46.
Evans, G. (2003). Built Environment and Mental Health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the
New York Academy of Medicine, 80(4), 536-555.
Evans, G., & McCoy, J. (1998). When buildings don‘t work: The role of architecture in human
health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85-94.
Evans, G. W. (1996). Environmental Psychology as a Field within Psychology. IAAP Newsletter.
http://www.ucm.es/info/Psyap/iaap/evans.htm.
87
88
Frankenhauser, M. (1980). Psychobiological aspects of life stress. In S. Levine & H. Ursin
References
(Eds.), Coping and health. (pp. 203–223). New York: Plenum Press.
Franzén, B. (1969). Offices 2 - a study of climate in nine offices block (Vol. Rapport 21/1969).
Stockholm: Byggforskningen.
Griffiths, I. D. (1970). Environmental effects on interpersonal affective behavior: Ambient
effective temperature and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 240-
244.
Griffiths, I. D. (1975). Thermal comfort: A behavioral approach. In D. Canter & P. Stringer
(Eds.), Environmental Interaction: Psychological Approaches to Our Physical Surroundings (pp.
21-52). London: Surrey University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1934). The affective value of color as a function of hue, tint, and chroma.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 342-370.
Haans, A., Kaiser, F. G., & de Kort, Y. A. W. (2007). Privacy Needs in Office Environments.
European Psycholigist, 12(2), 93-102.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Haka, M., Haapakanga, A., Keränen, J., Hakala, J., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009).
Performance effects and subjective disturbance of speech in acoustically different
office types - laboratory experiment. Indoor Air, May 15, 1-14.
Hartig, T., Böök, A., Garwill, J., Olsson, T., & Gärling, T. (1996). Environmental influences on
psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of psychology, 37, 378-393.
Hartig, T., Evans, G., Jamner, L., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in
natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment
experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
Hedge, A. (1982). The Open Plan Office. A systematic Investigation of Employee Reactions
to Their Work Environment. Environment & Behavior, 14(5), 519-542.
Heerwagen, J. (1990). The psychological aspects of windows and window design. Paper presented at the
EDRA 21 st annual conference „Windows, windowlessness and simulated view“,
Polytechnic Institute of New York, Brooklyn.
Heerwagen, J., & Orians, G. (1986). Adaptation to windowlessness: a study of the use of visual
décor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and Behavior, 18(5), 623-630.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Bloch Snyderman, B. (2003). The Motivation to Work (6th ed.).
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Hesselgren, S. (1986). Om arkitektur: en arkitekturteori baserad på psykologisk forskning (Eng.
About architecture: An architectural theory based on psychological research). Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur.
Hjemdahl, P. (2003). Stressphysiology - cardivascular system and stress. Paper presented at the Stress
Research from Biology to Society (Doctoral Course), 12th Sept. 2003, Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholm.
Holm, I. (2006). Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial design: How attitudes, orientations, and
underlying assumptions shape the built environment., AHO, Oslo School of Architecture
and Design, Oslo, Norway.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Illig, R. (1967). Kontorslandskapet - utformning av morgondagens kontor (Eng. Office
landscape - the design of tomorrow‘s office). Arkitektur (Eng. The magazine
Architecture)(12:67), pp.682-684.

88
 89
Jacob, K. W., & Suess, J. F. (1975). Effects of four psychological primary colors on anxiety state.

References
Perceptual and Motor skills. Perceptual and Motor skills, 41, 207-210.
Jensen, K. L., Arens, E., & Zagreus, L. (2005). Acoustical quality in office workstations, as assessed by
occupants surveys. Paper presented at the Anonymous Indoor Air 2005, Vol. II (2), 2401-
2405, 4-9 September, Beijing, China.
Johansson, G. (2002). Stresslandskapets förändrade karaktär (Eng. The changes characteristics
of stress). In R. Ekman & B. Arnetz (Eds.), Stress - molekylerna, individen, organisationen,
samhället (Stress - the molecules, the individe, the organization, the society). Stockholm: Liber.
Kaplan, S., Talbot, J., & Kaplan, R. (1988). Coping with daily hassles: The impact of nearby nature on
the work environment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Forest Service.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Health Work Stress. Productivity and the reconstruction of working
life. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Kawallek, N., Woodson, H., Lewis, C. S., & Sales, C. (1997). Impact of three interior color
schemes on worker mood and performance relative to individual environmental
sensitivity. Color Research and Applications, 22, 121- 132.
Kaya, N., & Epps, H. (2004). Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college
students. College Student Journal, 38(3), 396-405.
Keep, P. J., James, J., & Inman, M. (1980). Windows in the intensive therapy unit. Anaesthesia,
35, 257-262.
Kotter, J. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60(2), 157-
169.
Krantz, G. (2003). Gender differences in health -a response to stress? Paper presented at the Stress
Research from Biology to Society (Doctoral Course), 10th Oct. 2003, Department of
Psychology, Stockholm University.
Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R., & Chalfonte, B. (1990). Informal Communication in Organizations:
Form, Function and Technology. In S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds.), People‘s Reactions
to Technology in Factories, Offices and Aerospace. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuper, H., Singh-Manooux, A., Siegrist, J., & Mamot, M. (2002). When rediprocity fails: effort-
reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning with the
Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med, 59, 777-784.
Kupritz, V. W. (1998). Privacy in the work place: the impact of building design. Journal of
Enviromental Psychology, 18, 341-356.
Kupritz, V. W. (2000). The Dynamics of Privacy Regulation: A Conceptual Model for HRD and
Organizations. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(1).
Kupritz, V. W. (2002). The relative impact of workplace design on training transfer. Human
Resource Development Quaterly, 13(4), 427-447.
Küller, R. (1995). Färgens inverkan på människan (Eng.The colour´s influence on the human
being). In A. Hård, R. Küller, L. Sivik & Å. Svedmyr (Eds.), Upplevelse av färg och färgsatt
miljö (Perception of colours and coloured environments) (Vol. Färgantologi Bok 2). Stockholm:
Statens råd för byggnadsforskning.
Küller, R., & Lindsten, C. (1992). Health and behavior of children in classrooms with and
without windows. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 305-317.
Lang, J., Burnette, C., Moleski, W., & Vachon, D. (1974). Designing for Human Behavior. Architecture
and the Behavioral Sciences. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space. Oxford, England: Architectural Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the Coping Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, Y., & Brand, J. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work
environment and work outcomes. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 25(3), 323-333.

89
90
Lehrner, J., Eckersberg, C., Walla, P., Pötsch, G., & Deckee, L. (2000). Ambient odor of orange
References
in a dental office reduces anxiety and improves moods in female patients. Physiology &
Behavior, 71, 83-86.
Lenéer-Axelsson, B., & Thylefors, I. (1991). Arbetsgruppens psykologi (The psychology of the work group).
Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och kultur.
Lindström, K., Dallner, M., Elo, A.-L., Gamberale, F., Knardahl, S., Skogstad, A., et al. (1997).
Review of Psychological and Social Factors at Work and Suggestions for the General Nordic
Questionnaire (QPSNordic). Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper & R. I. T. (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1986 (pp. 1-35). Chichester, UK:
John Wiley.
Lu, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employees‘ well-being. Journal of Applied Management
Studies, 8, 61-72.
Lundberg, U., & Frankenhauser, M. (1999). Stress and work load of men and women in high
ranking positions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 142-152.
Lundberg, U., & Melin, B. (2002). Stress in the development of musculoskeletal pain. In S. J.
Linton (Ed.), New Avenues for The Prevention of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Disability
Pain Research and Clinical Management (Vol. 12): Elsevier Science B.V.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City (Sixth Paperback Printing ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts:
MIT Press.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York: Erlbaum.
Marans, R. W., & Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Evaluating Open and Conventional Office Design.
Environment & Behavior, 14(3), 333-351.
Marquardt, C., Veitch, J., & Charles, K. (2002). Research Report No RR-106. Environmental Satisfaction
with Open-plan Furniture Design and Layout. Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council
Canada.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Mazumdar, S. (1992). Sir, please do not take away my cubicle: The phenomenon of environmental
deprivation. Environment and Behavior, 24(6), 691-722.
McCoy, J. (2000). The Creative Work Environment: The Relationship of the Physical Environment and
Creative Teamwork at A State Agency – A Case Study. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
McEwen, B., & Norton Lasley, E. (2002). The end of stress as we know it. Washington, D.C.: Dana
Press/Joseph Henry Press.
Mendell, M. J., & Smith, A. H. (1990). Consistent pattern of elevated symptoms in air-conditioned
office buildings: A reanalsis of epidemiologic studies. Am J Public Health, 80, 1193-
1199.
Milczarek, M., Schneider, E., & Rial González, E. (2009). OSH in figures: Stress at work - facts and
figures. Luxemburg.
Mitchell McCoy, J. (2000). The Creative Work Environment: The Relationship of the Physical Environment
and Creative Teamwork at a State Agency. A case study. The University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee, Milwaukee.
Mitchell McCoy, J. (2002). Work Environments. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook
of Environmental Psychology (pp. 443-460). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moore, E. O. (1982). A prison environment: its affects on healthcare utilization., University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Mullins, L. J. (2008). Essentials of Organisational behaviour (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: FT Prentice
Hall (Financial Times), Pearson Education.

90
 91
Mustard, C., Lavis, J., & Ostry, A. (2006). New Evidence and Enhanced Understandings. In J.

References
Heymann, C. Hertzman, M. Barer & R. Evans (Eds.), Healthier Societies From Analysis to
Action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nemecek, J., & Grandjean, E. (1973). Results of an ergonomic investigation of large-space offices.
Human Factors, 15(2), 111-124.
Nylander, O. (1998). Bostaden som arkitektur (Eng.The Dwelling as Architecture). Unpublished
Monography, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
Nyströmer, B. C. (1956). Kontorsorganisation: det moderna kontorets organisation och utrustning (Eng.
Organization of offices: the modern office´s organization and work facilities). Stockholm:
Affärsekonomi (E. Westerberg).
O´Neill, M. J. (1994). Workspace adjustability, storage and enclosure as predictors of employee
reactions and performance. Environment & Behavior, 26(4).
Oldham, G. R. (1988). Effects of Changes in Workspace Partitions and Spatial Density on
Employees Reactions: A quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 253-258.
Oldham, G. R., & Brass, D. J. (1979). Employees Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A naturally
occurring Quasi-Experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 267-284.
Orth-Gomér, K. (2003). Women´s stress and health. Paper presented at the Stress Research
from Biology to Society (Doctoral Course), 26th Sept. 2003, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm.
Ottosson, E. (1967). Det nya kontoret: en bok om kontorsrationalisering och kontorslandskap (Eng. The new
office: a book on office ratinalization and pen plan offices). Stockholm: Prisma.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pejtersen, J., Allermann, L., Kristensen, T. S., & Poulsen, O. M. (2006). Indoor climate, psychosocial
work environment and symptoms in open-plan offices. Indoor air, 16, 392-401.
Pennock, J. R., & Chapman, J. W. (1971). Privacy. New York: Atherton Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational Development: Theory, Practice, and Research.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (3rd ed.). Palo Alto.
Porter, I. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organization structure in relation to job
attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 23-51.
Rehnfeldt, P. (2010). Kaffét som är ett kontor (Eng. The café that is an office). Arbetsliv (Eng.
Working Life), Nr 2 (March), 12-13.
Rodin, J., Solomon, S., & Metcalf, J. (1978). Role of Control in Mediating Perceptions of Density.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(9), 988-999.
Roethlisberger, J., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Rothbaum, R., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: a
two-process model of perceived control. J Pers & Soc Psych, 42, 5-37.
Ruys, T. (1970). Windowless offices. University of Washington, Seattle.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner - how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27-41.
Siegrist, J. (2003). The Effort/Reward Model. Paper presented at the Stress Research from Biology to
Society (Doctoral Course), 12th Dec. 2003, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and practice (4th Ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Standing, L., Lynn, D., & Moxness, K. (1990). Effects of noise upon introverts and extroverts.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28(2), 138-140.
91
92
Steele, F. I. (1973). Physical settings and organisational development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Westley.
References
Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding. Psychological Review, 79(3),
275-277.
Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments.
Environment of Behavior, 8, 49-86.
Stokols, D., Smith, T. E., & Prost, J. J. (1975). Partitioning and perceived crowding in a public
place. American Behavioral Scientist, 18, 792-814.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: the psychology of the physical environment in offices and factories. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sundstrom, E., Burt, R., & Kamp, D. (1980). Privacy at work: Architectural correlates of job
satisfaction and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 101-117.
Sundstrom, E., Herbert, R., & Brown, D. (1982). Privacy and communication in an open-plan
office: A case study. Environment & Behavior, 14, 379-392.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D., & Brill, M. (1994). Office noise, satisfaction,
and performance. Environment & Behavior, 26(2), 195-222.
Svedberg, L. (1992). Gruppsykologi - Om den inre och yttre scenen - teori och tillämpning (Eng. Group
psychology - About the internal and external scene). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Szilagyi, A., & Holland, W. (1980). Changes in social density: Relationships with functional
interaction and perceptions of job characteristics, role stress, and work satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 28-33.
Söderberg, I. (1993). Kap 3. Grupporganisation och inre miljö i samspel (Eng. Chap 3. The Interplay
between Group Organization and Interior Design). In G. Westlander (Ed.), Välkommen
till Teletjänsten…- Organisation, lokaler, arbetstider och arbetsinnehåll i förnyelse (Eng. Welcome
to Teletjänsten - A renewal of an organization) (pp. 27-55). Göteborg: Arbetsmiljöinstitutet
(The Swedish National Institute for Working Life).
Söderberg, I. (2003). Organisationer äger rum (Eng. Organizations take place). In L. Wilhelmson
(Ed.), Förnyelser på svenska arbetsplatser - balansakter och utvecklingsdynamik (Eng. A renewal
of the Swedish labour market - an act of balance and dynamics) (pp. 124-152). Stockholm:
Arbetslivsinstitutet (The National Institute for Working Life).
Toomingas, A. (1997). Associations between self-rated psychosocial work conditions and
musculoskeletal symptoms and signs. Stockholm MUSIC I study Group. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 23(2), 130-139.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224,
420-421.
Walch, M. J., Rabin, B. S., Day, R., Williams, J. N., Choi, K., & Kang, J. D. (2005). The effect of
sunlight on postoperative analgesic medication use. A prospective study of patients
undergoing spinal surgery. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 156 -163.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D., Baik, Y., Clausen, G., & Fanger, P. (1999). Perceived air quality, Sick
Building Symdrom (SBS) symptoms and productivity in an office with two different
polluted loads. Indoor Air, 9, 165-179.
Wargocki, P., Wyon, D., Sundell, J., Clausen, G., & Fanger, P. (2000). The effect of an outdoor air
supply in an office on perceived air quality, Sick Building Symdrom (SBS) symptoms and
productivity. Indoor Air, 10(4), 222-236.
Weinstein, C. S., & Weinstein, N. D. (1979). Noise and reading performance in an open space
school. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 210-213.
Veitch, J. A. (2001). Psychological Processes Influencing Lighting Quality. Journal of the Illuminating
Engineering Society, 30(1), 124–140.
Veitch, J. A., Gifford, R. (1996). Choice, perceived control, and performance decrements in the
physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 269-276.
92
 93
Werner, I. B. (2000). Spelar kvalitet någon roll för priset? En studie i bostadsrättsköp i StorStockholm

References
(Eng. Does Quality in Multi Family Housning matter? A study of Cooperative Housing Greater
Stockholm). Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Westerlund, H., Kivimäki, M., Singh-Manoux, A., Melchior, M., Ferrie, J. E., & Pentti, J. e. a.
(2009). Self-rated health before and after retirement in France (GAZEL): a cohort study.
The Lancet, 374(9705), 1889-1896.
Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. New York: Atheneum.
Wilson, L. M. (1972). Intensive care dilerium. The effect of outside deprivation in a windowless
unit. Archives of Internal Medicine, 130, 225-226.
Wineman, J. (1982). The office environment as a source of stress. In G. W. Evans (Ed.),
Environmental stress (pp. 256-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vischer, J. (1996). Workspace strategies: Environment as a Tool for Work. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Wochel, S., & Teddlie, C. (1976). Factors affecting the experience of crowding: a two-factor
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30-40.
Wolger, B., & Wiedling, K. (1970). Kontorsmiljöutredningen 1 - Attityder till kontorslandskaps -och
storrumsmiljö (The Office Environment Inquiry). Stockholm: Arbetsmiljöinstitutet (The
National Institute for Work Environment).
Woodson, W. G. (1981). Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Zalesny.
Åsberg, M., Nygren, Å., Rylander, G., & Rydmark, I. (2002). Stress och utmattningsdepression
(Eng. Stress and exhaustion depression). In R. Ekman & B. Arnetz (Eds.), Stress -
molekylerna, individen, organisationen, samhället (Stress - the molecules, the individe, the organization,
the society). Stockholm: Liber.

93
 Appendices

94
5
Appendices 1 - 3
94
APPENDIX 1

TABLES
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of qualitative study group.

Table 2. Distribution of office types within different companies

and divisions in larger companies.

Table 3. Sociodemographic data and job characteristics for 491

offic employees.

95
 
Table 1. Sociodemographic data of qualitative study group. Distribution of age, gender and line of business stratified for office type
      
Cell- Shared- Small open Medium-sized Large open Flex- Combi-
SEMI-STRUCTURED office room plan office open plan office plan office office office
INTERVIEWS (2-3 pers./ room) (4-9 pers./room) (10-24 pers./room) (25- pers./room)

Gender
Women 1 2 1 2 2 2
Men 1 1 1 2 2 2
Age group
21-34 years 29 (m) 32 (m) 34 (w)
31 (m)
35-49 years 30 (w)¹ 42 (w) 35 (w) 42 (w) 36 (w)

96
48 (w) 45 (w) 41 (w)
49 (m) 43 (m)
34 (m)
>49 years 59 (m)² 53 (m) 50 (m)
50 (m)
Line of business
Media, IT 1 1 1
Personal & economic guidance 1 1 4 1 1
Technical professions 2 1
Business adm./management 2 2
Service sector 1
¹w= respondent was a woman
²m= respondent was a man
Appendix 1
96
97

Appendix 1
Table 2. Distribution of office type within different companies and divisions in larger companies
COMPANY/DIVISION Cell- Shared- Small open Medium-sized Large open Flex- Combi-
Line of business office room plan office open plan office plan office office office
IN LARGER COMPANY
(Total n=485 people)¹ (n=137) (n=26) (n=44) (n=59) (n=77) (n=83) (n=59)
Company 1 Media, IT ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 2 Technical professions ɶ
Company 3 Technical professions ɶ
Company 4 Pers. & econ. guidance ɶ ɶ
Company 5 Technical professions ɶ
Company 6 Technical professions ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 7 Pers. & econ. guidance ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 8 Pers. & econ. guidance ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 9 Media, IT ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 10 Technical professions ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 11 (Division) Business adm./manag. ɶ ɶ ɶ ɶ

97
Company 12 (Division) Business adm./manag, ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 13 (Division) Business adm./manag. ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 14 (Division) Business adm./manag. ɶ ɶ
Company 15 Media, IT ɶ
Company 16 Pers. & econ. guidance ɶ
Company 17 Media, IT ɶ ɶ
Company 18 Business adm./manag. ɶ
Company 19 Media, IT ɶ
Company 20 Media, IT ɶ
Company 21 Media, IT ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 22 Media, IT ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 23 Pers. & econ. guidance ɶ ɶ ɶ
Company 24 Media, IT ɶ ɶ
Company 25 Media, IT ɶ ɶ
Company 26 Media, IT ɶ ɶ
¹ From 491 subjects 3 were excluded since they had no information on office type, and the 3 subjects from the service sector were excluded, since that
number was too small for analysis.
 Table 3. Sociodemographic data and job characteristics for 491 office employees. Distribution of age, gender, job ranks and
line of business is stratified for office type.
BACKGROUND Cell- Shared- Small open Medium-sized Large open Flex- Combi- Total 1
office room plan office open plan office plan office office office
FACTORS (n=137) (n=28) (n=44) (n=77) (n=84) (n=59) (n=491)
(n=59)
Age groups
21-24 years 38 (28%) 15 (54%) 12 (27%) 13 (22%) 19 (25%) 26 (32%) 33 (56%) 156 (32%)
35-49 years 51 (38%) 7 (25%) 15 (34%) 24 (41%) 30 (39%) 31 (38%) 20 (34%) 178 (37%)
>49 years 46 (34%) 6 (21%) 17 (39%) 21 (36%) 28 (36%) 25 (31%) 6 (10%) 149 (31%)
Missing information 2 1 2 8
Gender
Male 80 (59%) 16 (57%) 21 (48%) 24 (41%) 35 (46%) 36 (44%) 35 (59%) 247 (51%)
Female 55 (41%) 12 (43%) 23 (52%) 34 (59%) 42 (54%) 46 (56%) 24 (41%) 236 (49%)
Missing information 2 1 2 8
Job rank

98
High job rank 35 (26%) 3 (11%) 9 (21%) 5 (9%) 13 (17%) 17 (20%) 13 (22%) 95 (20%)
Middle-high job rank 8 (6%) 4 (14%) 3 (7%) 9 (16%) 14 (19%) 10 (12%) 18 (31%) 66 (14%)
Middle-low job rank 74 (54%) 14 (50%) 21 (47%) 32 (56%) 37 (49%) 41 (49%) 25 (42%) 243 (50%)
Low job rank 19 (14%) 7 (25%) 11 (26%) 11 (19%) 11 (15%) 16 (19%) 3 (5%) 78 (16%)
Missing information 1 1 2 2 9
Line of business
Media/IT 10 (7%) 8 (29%) 19 (43%) 29 (50%) 37 (48%) 42 (50%) 47 (83%) 192 (40%)
Pers. & economic guidance 45 (34%) 7 (25%) 14 (32%) 17 (29%) 5 (6%) 39 (46%) 3 (5%) 130 (27%)
Technical professions 74 (55%) 7 (25%) 1 (2%) 2 (3%) 8 (10%) 2 (2%) 2 (3%) 96 (20%)
Business adm. /management 5 (4%) 4 (14%) 10 (23%) 10 (23%) 27 (35%) 0 5 (9%) 61 (13%)
Service sector 0 2 (7%) 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 3 (1%)
Missing information 3 1 2 9
Note 1: In the total there are 3 subjects with missing information on office type.
Appendix 1
98
APPENDIX 2

INTERVIEW GUIDE
Intervjumall för djupintervju (Swedish)

English translation of interview guide available on request

99
100 Djupintervju
Interview guide
Appendix 2 BAKGRUND in Swedish
Datum för intervju:
Namn:
Ålder: Kön:
Företag: Bransch:
Vilken anställningsform har du?
(ex. tillsvidare anställning, frilans, vikarie, projektanställning)
Civilstånd: Barn, ålder på ev. barn:
Resväg till jobbet i tid räknad: Antal år inom Ditt yrke:
Befattning på jobbet: Leder andra personer i arbetet::

Vilken kontorstyp stämmer bäst med Din arbetsplats?

 x Cellkontor
- enskilt arbetsrum omgärdat av fyra väggar
- tillgång till utsikt från eget fönster
- tillgodose de flesta arbetsfunktionerna i det egna rummet, även enskilda möten

x Delat rum
- delat rum med 2-3 personer omgärdat av fyra väggar
- tillgång till utsikt från eget fönster
- tillgodose de flesta arbetsfunktionerna i det egna rummet

x Kontorslandskap
Antal personer 
- varje medarbetare har egen arbetsplats
- ej tillgång till eget fönster
- tillgodose de flesta arbetsfunktioner i det gemensamma rummet
- möten i specifika rum

x Flexkontor
- ingen inviduell arbetsplats
- bygger på tillgång till avancerad informationsteknologi, vilken gör medarbetarna
oberoende av tid och rum.
- har de personliga tillhörigheterna i en rullhurts eller eget skåp
- ej tillgång till eget fönster
- tillgodose samtliga arbetsfunktioner i de gemensamma utrymmena
- möten och privata telefonsamtal etc. i specifika rum

x Kombikontor
- individuell arbetsplats – antingen i eget rum eller i delat arbetsrum med andra
- arbetar mycket i grupp på annan plats än den enskilda arbetsplatsen. Minst 20% av arbets-
tiden i grupp på annan plats inom kontoret. (Ej informationsmöten med dagordning)
- hög grad av självständigt arbete i kombination med hög grad av arbete i projektgruppen
- tillgång till eget fönster beroende av arbetsplatsens placering (se beskrivning ovan)
- samtliga arbetsfunktioner tillgodoses i de gemensamma utrymmena
- möten liksom grupp- och projektarbeten i specifika rum

Vad tycker Du om att sitta i ………………………………?

(cellkontor, celat rum, kontorslandskap, flexkontor, kombikontor)

100
Interview guide 101
in Swedish

Appendix 2
Frågor baserade på QSPNordic/AH-enkäten
HÄLSA OCH VÄLBEFINNANDE

1) Hur är Din allmänhälsa nu? Hur har Du upplevt din allmänhälsa de senaste åren?

2) Känner Du dig återhämtad/utvilad när du vaknar?
Känner Du Dig mentalt trött dagtid?

3) Känner du Dig stressad just nu? Har Du känt dig stressad under det senaste året?

4) Hur trivs Du med livet generellt? Har Du gått igenom något jobbigt de senaste åren?

ARBETSMILJÖ 


1) Hur trivs Du med din arbetssituation nu? Hur har Du trivts med Din arbetssituation 
under det senaste året?

2) Hur många timmar arbetar du normalt per vecka?

3) Har Du ofta har svårt att koppla bort arbetet när Du är ledig?

4) Hur tycker du att samarbetet fungerar med din närmaste chef, överordnad?
Får du exempelvis klara besked om vad han/hon förväntar sig av Dig?
Får Du feedback på om Du gjort ett bra resp. dåligt arbete?

5) Har det förekommit någon form av förändring på Din arbetsplats de senaste 12 månader-
na så som uppsägningar, omorganisation eller någon annan typ av inskränkning?

6) Har Du varit sjukskriven för någon sjukdoms under det senaste året som Du anser har
med stress att göra?

UPPLEVELSE AV ARKITEKTUREN
Del 1 – baserad på frågor ur Nylanders doktorsavhandling Bostaden
som arkitektur, sektionen för Arkitektur, Chalmers, Göteborg 1998
1) Vad var ditt första intryck av kontoret?

2) Trivs Du? Och vad är det i så fall som gör att Du trivs?

3) Fungerar kontoret bra?

Är det något speciellt som Du saknar eller som Du gärna hade sett annorlunda?

4) Har Du någon favoritplats på kontoret, där Du slår dig ned för att hämta andan
eller för att utföra koncentrerat arbete? Vad är det som gör denna plats till favoritplats?

5) Hur fungerar fikarummet och arbetsplatser ihop?

6) Finns det olika zoner, gränser inom kontoret? Någon som känns mer eller mindre privat?

7) Vet Du hur möbleringen gått till på kontoret? Har det varit många möbleringsförsök
eller föll allt snabbt in på rätt plats? Får man möblera den egna platsen själv?

8) Har de olika rummen bytt funktion på kontoret?

101
102 Interview guide
Appendix 2 in Swedish

9) Har Ert kontor någon speciell status?

Hur är Ert kontors status i jämförelse med andra kontorsarbetsplatser?
Är Ert kontor populärt jämfört med exempelvis andra avdelningar inom företaget
eller andra företagskontor?

10) Identiteten? Hur ser Du på kontorets identitet och den i relation till Dig själv?
Kontorets identitet i relation till din yrkesroll?

11) Umgås Du med Dina arbetskamrater? Tycker Du att kontorsutformningen

uppmuntrar till umgänge? Finns det platser som det känns naturligt att träffas vid?

12) Vet Du att arbetskamrater har slutat för att de inte trivts med kontoret?

13) Trapphuset/entrézon, hur är det? Mörkt, lagom stort, påkostat och representativt?
Passar det med yrkesrollen? Passar det med övriga kontoret?

14) Finns det skillnader i dagsljuset i rummen?

15) Upplever Du kontoret som ljust, är fönstren lagom stora?

16) Har Du tillgång till eget fönster vid din arbetsplats?

Har Du tillgång till bra dagsljus på din arbetsplats? Är det artificiella ljuset bra/tilläckligt?

17) Insyn kontra utblick ifrån Din arbetsplats?

18) Har Du upplevt att det finns riktningar eller axlar på kontoret? Genomblickar tvärs
genom kontoret mellan olika rum?

19) Hur rör Du Dig mellan de olika rummen inom kontoret, olika korridorer?
Finns det en tydlig angivelse hur Du bör röra dig?
Finns det olika sätt att röra sig på? I så fall, upplever Du det som positivt/negativt?

20) Är det bra att kunna gå runt genom kontoret?

21) Upplever Du huset eller kontoret som djupt eller smalt?

22) Öppna eller slutna rum, är det något Du tänker på?

23) Har de olika rummen på kontoret olika stämningar eller atmosfär, vad beror det på?

24) Materialen på kontoret hur upplevs de?

25) Hur är det med förråd, skåp, hyllor och andra fasta inventarier? Upplevs de som vackra,
bra eller dåligt utförda?

26) Kvalitetsmässigt - är det ett bra hus? När Du tänker på sådant som målarfärg, detalj-
arbeten i trä och plåt, material och detaljutformning av fönster och dörrar?

27) Vad tycker Du om färgsättningen på kontoret?

28) Är hallen representativ? Är hallen välkomnande då Du kommer till jobbet på

morgonen? Påverkan den Din känsla då Du kommer till jobbet?

102
Interview guide 103
in Swedish

Appendix 2
Del 2 – baserad på frågor ur Lynch bok Image of the City,
MIT Press,The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the President
and Fellows of Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, USA 1960




1) Vad är det första Du tänker på då Du tänker på Din arbetsplats? Den sociala miljön, den
fysiska utformningen eller arbetet i sig?
Om Du enbart tänker på den fysiska miljön – vad är det första Du tänker på då Du tänker
på Din arbetsplats/kontor?

2) Skulle Du vilja göra en snabb skiss över Ditt kontor?

Gör den som om Du snabbt skulle förklara kontoret för någon som är ny på platsen.
Betona det Du tycker är viktigt för förståelsen av kontoret.

3) Skulle Du vilja beskriva hur Du rör Dig när Du kommer till kontoret på morgonen, från entré-
hall fram till arbetsplatsen via olika platser Du rör Dig. Ifall Du slår dig ner hos en kollega osv.
Vad tänker Du på när Du rör Dig genom kontoret - särskilda lukter, synintryck som spelar
roll för den bild Du har av kontoret och hur Du rör dDig?

4) Ifall du beskriver Ditt kontor, är det något som Du upplever som distinktivt och viktigt för
miljön. Det kan vara någon liten detalj, eller stor.

5) Hur skulle Du generellt beskriva Ditt kontor och Din enskilda arbetsplats? Har Du någon
specifik känsla kopplad till Ditt kontor och Din enskilda arbetsplats?

6a) Tycker Du att det är viktigt att snabbt kunna orientera dig då Du är i en lokal eller kommer
in i en byggnad? Är sådana faktorer som att ett rum är spännande och därmed mindre över-
blickbart viktigare för Dig?

b) Är Ditt kontor lätt att orientera sig i, känns det logiskt planerat?
Upplever Du det som viktigt?

Del 3 – baserad på frågor ur Söderbergs enkät, Kap. 3 ”Grupp-

organisationer och inre miljö i samspel” (bilaga 3.1). I antologin:
Välkommen till Teletjänsten – Organisation, lokaler, arbetsinnehåll i
förnyelse, G. Westlander et al. (red.), Arbesmiljöinstitutet, Göteborg, 1993




1) Hur bedömer Du rummets/lokalernas bidrag till sammanhållning/gruppkänsla inom

gruppen och gentemot andra avdelningar ifall det sådana finns?

2) Upplever Du att det finns ”revirindelningar” inom kontoret? Ifall det är så, bedömer Du att
det kan hänföras till lokalernas utformning eller grupporganisationen?

3) Har Du någon möjlighet att dekorera eller på annat sätt göra Ditt arbetsrum mer
personligt?

103
APPENDIX 3

QUESTIONNAIRES
QSPNordic, AH-questionnaire, BIU-questionnaire,
Interplay between Group Organization & Interior Design

ENKÄTER (Questionnaires) (Swedish)

Anställning & Kontor (Employment & Office type)
Personlig bakgrund ( Personal background)
Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö (Health & Work environment)

English translation of questionnaires are available on request

104
Questionnaire 105
in Swedish Anställning - Kontor

Appendix 3
(Svensk version)

ENKÄT
BAKGRUND
Namn: Datum för intervju:
1. Ålder:
2. Kön:
3. Företag:
4. Bransch:

5. Vilken anställningsform har Du?

Tillsvidare anställning

Frilans

Vikarie
Projektanställning
Annan:

Vilken kontorstyp stämmer bäst in med din arbetsplats?

Kryssa i ett av följande alternativ.

6. Du har eget rum (Cellkontor)

7. Du har ingen egen fast arbetsplats (Flexkontor)

8. a Du sitter i ett kontorslandskap

b Hur många är ni ungefär som delar rum?

Med rum avses här den sammanhängande ytan som delas
med medarbetare.

9. Du arbetar i grupp på annan plats än Din enskilda arbetsplats

mer än 30 % av din arbetstid. Du kan med andra ord sägas
ha tillgång till mer än bara Din enskilda arbetsplats.
(Kombikontor)

Ifall du svarat ja på fråga 7, 8 eller 9:

10. Hade Du på den arbetsplats där Du arbetade innan Din
nuvarande arbetsplats tillgång till enskilt rum?
JA

NEJ

105
106 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Personlig bakgrund in Swedish

Flickvän/
11. Civilstånd: Gift Sambo pojkvän Singel

Ifall Du är född utomlands:

12. Vid vilken ålder kom du till Sverige?

13. a Antal hemmaboende barn:

b Ålder på hemmaboende barn:

14. Hur lång resväg har Du tur och retur till arbetet i minuter räknat?
(Räkna in gång- och väntetid, men ej tid för inköp eller att hämta och lämna
barn hos dagmamma, på dagis, skola etc.)

15. Vilken är Din högst avslutade utbildning?

Grundskola
Gymnasieskola - högst två år
Gymnasieskola - längre än två år
Universitet-/högskoleutbildning
Forskarutbildning

Annat, ange vad:

16. Hur många år har Du arbetat inom Ditt nuvarande yrke?

17. Hur länge har Du varit på denna arbetsplats?

(Med arbetsplats avses här arbetsgivare.)

18. Vilken befattning har Du på jobbet?

19. Leder Du andra personer i arbetet? JA

NEJ

106
Questionnaire 107
in Swedish Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö

Appendix 3
ARBETE OCH HÄLSA
20. Med tanke på Din hälsa - tror du att Du kan arbeta i Ditt nuvarande yrke även
om två år?

Antagligen inte
Jag är osäker på det
Ja, ganska säker

21. Hur många gånger under de senaste 12 månaderna har det hänt att Du gått
till arbetet, trots att Du med tanke på Ditt hälsotillstånd borde varit hemma?

Ingen gång
En gång
2-5 gånger
Mer än 5 gånger

22. Händer det att Du tar ut semester eller kompledigt istället för att sjukanmäla Dig
när Du är sjuk?

Aldrig
Någon enstaka gång
Ganska ofta
Ofta
Ej aktuellt
(ej varit sjuk)

23. Hur många dagar under de senaste 12 månaderna har Du sammanlagt varit
borta från arbetet pga. egen sjukdom? (sjukskrivning, vård, behandling eller undersökning)

Ingen dag
1 - 7 dagar
8-24 dagar
25-99 dagar

100-365 dagar

107
108 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö in Swedish

Instruktioner till frågorna 24 t.o.m. 29:

Detta formulär innehåller frågor om hur Du ser på Din hälsa. Informationen skall hjälpa till att följa
hur Du mår och fungerar i Ditt dagliga liv. Besvara frågorna genom att sätta ett kryss i den ruta
Du tycker stämmer bäst in på Dig. Om Du är osäker, kryssa då i den ruta som känns närmast.
24. I allmänhet, skulle Du vilja säga att Din hälsa är

Utmärkt Mycket god God Någorlunda Dålig

25. Följande två frågor handlar om aktiviteter som Du kan tänkas utföra under en
vanlig dag. Är Du p.g. a. Ditt hälsotillstånd begränsad i dessa aktiviteter nu?
Om så är fallet, hur mycket?

a) Måttligt ansträngande aktiviteter, som att flytta ett bord, dammsuga, skogs-
promenader eller trädgårdsarbete
Ja, Nej,
Ja, mycket litet inte alls
begränsad begränsad begränsad

b) Gå uppför flera trappor Ja, Nej,

Ja, mycket litet inte alls
begränsad begränsad begränsad

26. Under de senaste fyra veckorna , har Du haft något av följande problem i ditt
arbete eller med andra regelbundna dagliga aktiviteter som en följd av
Ditt kroppsliga hälsotilstånd?
Ja Nej
a) Uträttat mindre än Du skulle önskat
b) Varit hindrad att utföra vissa arbetsuppgifter eller
andra aktiviteter

26.5 Under de senaste fyra veckorna , har Du haft något av följande problem i
Ditt arbete eller med andra regelbundna dagliga aktiviteter som en följd av
känslomässiga problem ? (t ex nedstämdhet eller ängslan) Ja Nej
a) Uträttat mindre än Du skulle önskat

b) Inte utföra arbete eller andra aktiviteter så

noggrant som vanligt

27. Under de senaste fyra veckorna , hur mycket har värk eller smärta stört Ditt
normala arbete? (innefattar både arbete utanför hemmet och hushållssysslor)
Inte alls Litet Måttligt Mycket Väldigt mycket

108
Questionnaire 109
in Swedish Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö

Appendix 3
Frågorna här handlar om hur Du känner Dig och hur Du haft det under de senaste fyra
veckorna. Ange för varje fråga det svarsalternativ som bäst beskriver hur Du känt Dig.

28. Hur stor del av tiden under de senaste fyra veckorna

a) har Du känt Dig lugn och harmonisk ?

Hela Större delen En hel del En del Litet Inget av

tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden tiden

b) har Du varit full av energi ?

Hela Större delen En hel del En del Litet Inget av
tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden tiden

c) har Du känt Dig dyster och ledsen ?

Hela Större delen En hel del En del Litet Inget av
tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden tiden

29. Under de senaste fyra veckorna , hur stor del av tiden har Ditt kroppsliga hälso-
tillstånd eller Dina känslomässiga problem stört Dina möjligheter att umgås?
(t ex hälsa på vänner etc.)

Hela Större delen En hel del En del Litet Inget av

tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden av tiden tiden

SÖMN OCH ÅTERHÄMTNING

30. Hur bedömer Du på det hela taget Din sömnkvalitet?

Mycket Ganska Varken bra Ganska Mycket

bra bra eller dålig dålig dålig

31.
a) Känner Du dig utvilad och återhämtad när Du börjar arbeta igen efter par
dagars ledighet?
Aldrig Sällan Ibland Ganska ofta Mycket ofta

b) Känner Du dig utvilad och återhämtad när Du börjar arbeta igen efter en flera
veckors lång ledighet/ semester?

Aldrig Sällan Ibland Ganska ofta Mycket ofta

109
110 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö
in Swedish

STRESS
32. Instruktioner: Sätt ett kryss i den ruta som bäst passar in på Dig som Du
vanligtvis brukar reagera. Försök att vara så ärlig Du kan när Du svarar,
och tänk inte för länge på varje fråga.
Nästan Nästan
aldrig Ibland Ofta alltid
a) Jag känner mig tidspressad

b) Jag rör mig snabbt, som om jag hade bråttom

c) Jag tycker mycket illa om att stå i kö

d) Jag blir irriterad på andra bilister

e) Jag går på högvarv och driver på mig själv

f) Jag blir otålig på människor som gör saker

och ting långsamt

g) Jag tävlar med mig själv och andra

h) Jag gör två eller flera saker samtidigt

i) Jag känner mig irriterad och upprörd inombords

j) Jag pratar fort och med starkt eftertryck

k) Jag kommer på mig själv med att skynda mig,

även när jag egentligen har gott om tid

l) Jag blir irriterad på människor som är fumliga

eller slarviga

m) Jag äter fort och är den som är färdig först

n) När jag talar med andra vill jag gärna få första

ordet och övertyga de andra om att jag har rätt

o) Jag får utbrott av irritation och ilska

p) När jag talar med andra tänker jag på annat

än det vi pratar om

q) Jag har svårt att göra "ingenting"

r) Jag faller andra i talet

s) Jag blir irriterad över de fel andra människor begår

t) Folk i min omgivning säger åt mig att varva ner

Nästan Ibland Ofta Nästan
aldrig alltid

110
Questionnaire 111
in Swedish

Appendix 3
Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö

ARBETSKRAV Mycket Mycket

sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta /
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta Alltid
33. Är Din arbetsmängd så ojämnt för-
delad att arbetet hopar sig?
34. Måste Du arbeta övertid?
35. Måste Du arbeta i mycket högt tempo?

36. Har Du för mycket att göra?

37. Kräver Ditt arbete snabba beslut?

38. Är Dina arbetsuppgifter för svåra för Dig?

39. Kräver Ditt arbete maximal uppmärk-
samhet?

40. Kräver Ditt arbete komplicerade beslut?

41. Utför Du arbetsuppgifter som Du skulle
behöva mer utbildning för?
42. Kräver Ditt arbete att Du skaffar Dig nya
kunskaper och färdigheter?

ROLLFÖRVÄNTAN, MÅLSÄTTNING & FEEDBACK

Mycket Ganska Ganska Mycket
sällan eller sällan Ibland ofta ofta/
aldrig Alltid
43. Finns det klart definierade mål för
Ditt arbete?

44. Vet Du vilket ansvarsområde Du har?

45. Vet Du precis vad som krävs av Dig

i arbetet?

46. Måste Du utföra saker som Du tycker

skulle göras annorlunda?

47. Får Du arbetsuppgifter utan att få de

resurser som behövs för att utföra dem?

48. Ställs det oförenliga krav på Dig från två

eller flera personer?

49. Innebär Ditt arbete arbetsuppgifter som är

i konflikt med Dina personliga värderingar?

50. Är målen för Ditt arbet utmanande men

realistiska? (varken för svåra eller för lätta)

111
112 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö in Swedish

Mycket Mycket
sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
51. Får Du regelbunden information som visar
hur Du presterar i relation till Dina mål?

52. Om Du har flera samtidiga mål, vet Du

då vilka som är viktigast och vilka som
är minst viktiga?

53. Låter Din chef Dig vara med och att sätta
upp Dina mål?

54. Får Du information om kvaliteten på det

arbete Du utför?

55. Kan Du själv direkt avgöra om Du gör

ett bra arbete?
Instäm- Instäm- Instämmer
mer mer Tvek- i stort Instäm-
inte alls något sam sett mer helt
56. Det finns klara verksamhetsmål i
den verksamhet som jag arbetar i

57. Min arbetsplats har tillräckliga

resurser för att målsättningen
skall fungera (t ex tid, pengar, utrustning, medarbetare)

Mycket Mycket
KONTROLL I ARBETET sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
58. Om det finns olika sätt att göra Ditt
arbete på, kan Du då själv välja hur Du
skall göra det?

59. Kan Du påverka mängden arbete Du får?

60. Kan Du själv bestämma Din arbetstakt?

61. Kan Du själv bestämma när Du skall ta

en paus?

62. Kan Du själv bestämma hur länge Du

tar paus?

63. Kan Du bestämma Din arbetstid? (flextid)

64. Kan Du påverka beslut angående vilka

personer Du skall arbeta tillsammans med?

112
Questionnaire 113
in Swedish Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö

Appendix 3
KONTROLL I ARBETET Mycket Mycket
sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
65. Kan Du påverka beslut som är viktiga
för Ditt arbete?

66. Kan Du påverka hur Din arbetstid förläggs?

SKICKLIGHET I ARBETET
67. Är Du nöjd med kvaliten på det arbete
Du gör?

68. Är Du nöjd med den mängd arbete Du

får gjord?

69. Är Du nöjd med Din förmåga att lösa

problem i arbetet?

70. Är Du nöjd med Din förmåga att upprätt-

hålla ett gott förhållande till Dina arbets-
kamrater?

Mycket Mycket
SOCIALT SAMSPEL sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
71. Om Du behöver får Du då stöd & hjälp
med Ditt arbete från Dina arbetskamrater?

72. Om Du behöver, får Du då stöd och hjälp

med Ditt arbete från Din närmaste chef?

73. Om Du behöver, är Dina arbetskamrater

då villiga att lyssna till problem som rör
Ditt arbete?

74. Om Du behöver, är Din närmaste chef

då villig att lyssna på problem som rör
Ditt arbete?

75. Får Du uppskattning för Dina arbets-

prestationer från Din närmaste chef?

76. Har Du lagt märket till störande konflikter

mellan arbetskamrater?

113
114 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö in Swedish

LEDARSKAP Mycket Mycket

sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
77. Upplever Du ett i stort sett fungerande
ledarskap från Din närmaste chef?
78. Uppmuntrar Din närmaste chef Dig att
delta i viktiga beslut?
79. Uppmuntrar Din närmaste chef Dig att
säga ifrån när Du har en annan åsikt?
80. Hjälper Din närmaste chef Dig att
utveckla Dina färdigheter?
81. Fördelar Din närmaste chef arbetet på ett
på ett opartiskt och rättvist sätt?
82. Behandlar Din närmaste chef de anställ-
da på ett rättvist och jämlikt sätt?
83. Är förhållandet mellan Dig och Din
närmaste chef en orsak till stress?
84. Litar Du på ledningens förmåga att klara
framtiden för arbetsplats/organisation?

ORGANISATIONSKLIMAT
Belönas man för ett väl utfört arbete på Din arbetsplats/ arbetsenhet?
Mycket lite Ganska Ganska Väldigt
eller inte alls lite Något Mycket mycket
85. Materiella belöningar

86. Immateriella belöningar

(uppmuntran och annat stöd)

87. Tas de anställda väl omhand på

Din arbetsplats?

88. I vilken utsträckning intresserar sig ledning

för personalens hälsa och välbefinnande?

89. Tas de anställda på Din arbetsplats egna

initiativ?

90. Uppmuntras de anställda på Din arbets-

plats att göra förbättringar?

91. Kommunicerar man tillräckligt med

varandra på Din arbetsplats?

114
Questionnaire 115
in Swedish Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö

Appendix 3
SAMBAND MELLAN ARBETSLIV OCH PRIVATLIV
Mycket Mycket
sällan eller Ganska Ganska ofta/
aldrig sällan Ibland ofta alltid
92. Påverkar kraven i Ditt arbete Ditt hem-
och familjeliv på ett negativt sätt?

ENGAGEMANG I FÖRETAGET/ ARBETSPLATSEN

Följande påståenden handlar om Din inställning till företaget Du arbetar i. Ange i vilken
grad Du personligen instämmer i eller tar avstånd ifrån vart och ett av påståendena.

Tar i viss Instäm- Instäm-

Tar totalt mån av- mer i mer
avstånd ifrån stånd ifrån Neutral viss mån totalt
93. För mina vänner berättar jag
att företaget är ett mycket
bra ställe att arbeta på

94. Mina egna värderingar är

mycket lika företagets

95. Företaget inspirerar mig verk-

ligen att göra ett bra jobb

ARBETSMOTIVATION Nästan
Nä
Ja, ofta Ja, ibland Tveksamt aldrig Aldrig
96. Känner Du Dig motiverad för
Ditt arbete?
Nästan
Ja, ofta Ja, ibland Tveksamt aldrig Aldrig
97. Upplever Du att arbetsuppgif-
terna stimulerar Dig i Ditt arbete?

99. Skulle Du vilja arbeta färre antal

h/ve om Din ekonomi tillät det?

Fler än 20 15-20 10.-14 5-l 9 Mindre än

dagar dagar dagar dagar 5 dagar
100. Hur många dagar i månaden
har Du en stark vilja att arbeta?
Varken
Mycket Ganska nöjd eller Ganska Mycket
nöjd nöjd missnöjd missnöjd missnöjd
101. Hur nöjd eller misssnöjd är Du
med Ditt arbete?

115
116 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Hälsa & Arbetsmiljö in Swedish

AVSLUTANDE FRÅGOR KRING DIN ARBETSSITUATION

Stämmer Stämmer
Stämmer inte ganska Stämmer
102. inte alls särskilt bra bra precis
a) Jag finner ständigt nya och intressanta
aspekter i mitt arbeter
b) Det finns dagar då jag känner mig trött
redan innan jag går till arbetet
c) Det händer ofta att jag talar om mitt arbete
på ett nedvärderande sätt
d) Jag behöver mer tid för avkoppling nu än
förr för att återhämta mig från arbetet
e) Jag klarar påfrestningarna i mitt arbete bra

f) På senare tid har jag utfört arbetet alltmer

mekaniskt istället för att använda hjärnan
g) Jag ser mitt arbete som en utmaning

h) På jobbet känner jag mig ofta känslo-

mässigt urlakad
i) Med tiden förlorar man ett djupare intresse
för det egna arbetet
j) Efter jobbet har jag vanligtvis lust och ork
för mina fritidsaktiviteter
k) Ibland känns mina arbetsuppgifter riktigt
motbjudande
l) Efter jobbet känner jag mig ofta trött & utsliten

m) Jag kan inte tänka mig ett annat yrke

n) Normalt hinner jag gott & väl med mina

arbetsuppgifter
o) Med tiden engagerar jag mig mer och mer
i mitt arbete
p) I mitt arbete känner jag mig stark och säker

Nästan 1-5 ggr/ 6-10 ggr/ Mer än

103. Hur stor del av en vanlig arbetsdag aldrig dag dag 10 ggr/dag
arbetar Du vid dator?
(Arbetar Du hela Din arbetsdag vid dator
kryssa i rutan med texten: 10 ggr/dag = 100%)

116
Questionnaire 117
in Swedish Arkitektur & fysisk miljö

Appendix 3
UPPLEVELSEN AV FYSISKA MILJÖN PÅ KONTORET
Ringa in den siffra som överensstämmer bäst in med din uppfattning.

104. Hur är temperaturkomforten på Ditt kontoret i allmänhet?

1 2 3 4 5
Generellt Generellt
dålig bra

105. Hur kallt är det?

1 2 3 4 5
För kallt Komfortabelt

106. Hur varmt är det?

1 2 3 4 5
För varmt Komfortabelt

107. Hur är det med temperaturväxlingar?

1 2 3 4 5
Alltför ofta Generellt
förekommande komfortabelt

108. Hur är ventilationskomforten?

1 2 3 4 5
Generellt Generellt
dålig bra

109. Hur är luftkvaliten?

1 2 3 4 5
Unken luft Frisk luft

110. Hur är luftrörelsen?

1 2 3 4 5
Stillastående Ofta utbytt

111. Hur är det med buller/ ljudstörningar?

1 2 3 4 5
Generellt Generellt
dålig bra

117
118 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Arkitektur & fysisk miljö in Swedish

112. Hur är bakgrundsljudet generellt?

1 2 3 4 5
Störande Inget problem

113. Hur är det med ljud från röster, kontorsutrustning som skrivare mm?
1 2 3 4 5
Störande Inget problem

114. Hur är det med ljudnivån på ventilationssystemet?

1 2 3 4 5
Störande Inget problem

115. Hur är det med ljudnivån på belysningen?

1 2 3 4 5
Bullrigt Inget problem

116. Hur är ljudnivån utomhus?

1 2 3 4 5
Störande Inget problem

117. Hur gott om utrymme har Du på Din arbetsplats för arbetsmaterial?

1 2 3 4 5
Otillräckligt Tillräckligt, fullgod

118. Hur gott om utrymme har Du på Din arbetsplats för personliga saker?

1 2 3 4 5
Otillräckligt Tillräckligt, fullgod

119. Hur väl är Din arbetsplats avskärmad?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

120. Hur väl är Din arbetsplats avskärmad ljudmässigt för samtal?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

118
Questionnaire 119
in Swedish Arkitektur & fysisk miljö

Appendix 3
121. Hur väl är Din arbetsplats avskärmad ljudmässigt för telefonsamtal?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

122. Hur är det artificiella ljuset?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

123. Hur starkt är ljuset?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

124. Bländas Du av det artificiella ljuset vid Din arbetsplats?

1 2 3 4 5
Mycket bländning Ingen bländning

125. Anser Du att Din arbetsplats stödjer Dig i Ditt arbete?

1 2 3 4 5
Försvårar Underlättar
arbetet arbetet

126. Hur skulle Du bedöma Din tillfredsställelse med denna byggnad?

1 2 3 4 5
Missnöjd Mycket nöjd

127. Hur s bedömer Du tillgången på dagsljus vid Din arbetsplats?

1 2 3 4 5
Dåligt Bra

128. Bländas Du av dagsljus vid Din arbetsplats?

1 2 3 4 5
Mycket bländning Ingen bländning

119
120 Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Arkitektur & fysisk miljö in Swedish

GRUPPORGANSATION & INRE MILJÖ I SAMSPEL

Ringa in den siffra som överensstämmer bäst in med din uppfattning.

129. Hur upplever Du att sammanhållningen/samarbetet är...

Mycket Ganska Ganska Mycket
bra bra dålig dålig
a) inom Din egen grupp? 1 2 3 4

b) mellan olika arbetsgrupper 1 2 3 4

på arbetsplatsen?

c) inom företaget som helhet? 1 2 3 4

130. Hur bedömer Du att Ditt eget arbetsrum/lokalen där Du sitter ...
Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) underlättar kontakter 1 2 3 4
inom gruppen?

b) ger gruppkänsla/samhörighet? 1 2 3 4

131. Hur bedömer Du att arbetslokalerna i sin helhet i arbetsplatsen

underlättar kontakter mellan grupperna?

Inte I någon Ganska I hög

alls mån mycket grad

1 2 3 4

132. Upplever Du att det finns revir...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) inom Din egen arbetsgrupp? 1 2 3 4

133. Upplever Du att det finns konkurrens...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög

alls mån mycket grad

a) inom Din egen arbetsgrupp? 1 2 3 4

b) mellan olika arbetsgrupper? 1 2 3 4

120
Questionnaire 121
in Swedish

Appendix 3
Arkitektur & fysisk miljö

134. Har Du någon möjlighet att dekorera eller på annat sätt göra Din
arbetsplats mer personligt?

Inte I någon Ganska I hög

alls mån mycket grad

1 2 3 4

135. Hur bedömer Du att Ditt eget arbetsrum/lokalen där Du sitter...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög

alls mån mycket grad

a) ger möjlighet till avskildhet? 1 2 3 4

136. Besväras Du på något sätt av ...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) bristande möjlighet till avskildhet? 1 2 3 4

b) att kunna avlyssnas? 1 2 3 4

c) att vara iaktagna? 1 2 3 4

d) den allmänna ljudnivån? 1 2 3 4

137. Hur bedömer Du att Ditt arbetsrum/lokalen där du sitter har ...
Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) allmänt bra arbetsmiljö 1 2 3 4

138. Hur bedömer Du att arbetslokalerna i sin helhet på företaget innebär...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) trevliga pausutrymmen 1 2 3 4

b) bra matutrymmen 1 2 3 4

c) allmänt bra arbetsmiljö 1 2 3 4

121
122
Appendix 3 Arkitektur & fysisk miljö

139. Vad har Du för synpunkt på arbetsplatsernas utformning med avseende

på följande…
Mycket Ganska Ganska Mycket
bra bra dåligt dåligt

a) bekvämlighet 1 2 3 4

b) sittkomfort/stolar 1 2 3 4

c) arbetsställning 1 2 3 4

140. Hur stor del av arbetsdagen kan Du säga att Du känner

verklig tillfredsställelse med Ditt jobb?
För det Större C:a halva Bara Nästan
mesta delen tiden stundtals aldrig

1 2 3 4 5

141. Hur bedömer Du Ditt eget arbetsrum/lokalen där Du sitter...

Inte I någon Ganska I hög
alls mån mycket grad

a) bidrar till arbetstillfredsställelse? 1 2 3 4

b) är trivsamt? 1 2 3 4

122

View publication stats